Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

The issue in this writ petition is concerning the confiscation of the petitioner's vehicle carrying certain ayurvedic medicines that allegedly contained some trace of alcohol. The petitioner and her son, being the registered ayurvedic medical practitioners, have the necessary Exts. P. 1 to P. 3 licences to manufacture, process and deal in the ayurvedic medicines.

2. On 26.08.2009, at about 4.15 p.m., the 4th respondent intercepted and seized the Maruti Omni van belonging to the petitioner for the offence of transporting about 131.52 litres of arishtam' and 18 litres of 'asavas' (ayurvedic preparations). Against the petitioner's son, the 4th respondent registered an abkari case in Crime No. 45 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 9 and 10 of the Kerala Spirituous Preparations (Control) Rules, 1969 ('the Rules' for brevity) and also under Sections 56(b) and 67B(a) of the Abkari Act ('the Act' for brevity). In the course of time, the seized vehicle was produced before the authorised officer, who after completing the legal formalities confiscated it under Section 67B of the Act.

3. Insofar as the crime is concerned, the petitioner's son and the petitioner, being accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 620 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Cherthala, earned a conviction through Ext. P.5 judgment by pleading guilty. The learned Trial Court, in fact, as a measure of sentencing the accused, imposed a fine of 2000/- on them under Section 56(b) of the Act. As regards the seized property, the Court has entrusted it to the third respondent for disposal as per the Rules.

4. Assailing the confiscation of her motor vehicle belonging, the petitioner initially filed an appeal before the third respondent, who, however, dismissed it through Ext. P. 8. Aggrieved, when the petitioner filed a revision before the second respondent, the revisional authority, too, dismissed it through Ext. P.9 order dated 22.09.2011. Eventually, impugning Ext. P. 9, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

5. Sri. T.A. Shaji, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner is an ayurvedic doctor rendering yeomen service to the society, especially the poor. He has contended that the petitioner has all the necessary permits and licences as can be seen from Ext. P. 1 to P. 3. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the vehicle seized by the authorities had only been transporting bona fide medicinal preparations as have been defined in Rule 3(d) of the Rules.

6. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the provisions of the Abkari Act, including Sections 56(b) and 67B of the Act, do not get attracted to the alleged offence committed by the petitioner and her son transporting the proprietary ayurvedic medicines. In elaboration of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that as per Section 3(14) of the Act, unless a drug, assuming to be intoxicating, has been notified by the Government, the question of applying the provisions of the Abkari Act does not arise.

7. The learned Senior Counsel has also drawn my attention to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. He has stressed on what is said to be the admission of the authorities that the petitioner and her son were found transporting genuine ayurvedic drugs. The alleged offence, if any, contends the learned Senior Counsel, is at best a technical transgression of certain Rules concerning the transportation of drugs beyond specified quantity. Eventually, the learned Senior Counsel has also emphasised that in Ext. P. 10 report submitted by the 4th respondent to the second respondent, it is recorded that the petitioner and her son are bona fide medical practitioners, and they are treating poor patients free of cost. Summing up his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel has urged this Court to set aside Ext. P. 9 order in revision and consequently direct the authorities to r