The main legal point established in the judgment is that the registered owner of a vehicle used for transporting contraband cannot be held liable under S.55(a) of the Abkari Act unless there is specific evidence of their involvement, and there are no provisions in the Act imposing liability solely based on ownership.

V.K. Mohanan, J.

1. C.P. No. 26/2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class Court, Alathur, is instituted upon the final report filed by the Circle Inspector of Police, Vadakkancherry police station after investigation in crime No. 377/2005 of Vadakkancherry police station wherein the offence alleged against the accused (3 in number) is that they have committed offence punishable under S.55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The petitioner who is the 3rd accused in the above case filed this Crl. M.C. with the prayer to quash annexure B final report to the extent it is against her.

2. The allegation against the accused in the above case is that the respondent and party seized the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-3/L-4170 at about 9.15 a.m. on 14-7-2005 on the allegation that 700 litres of spirit which was being transported in the above vehicle by one Vinod Varghese and Pradeep at Mangalam bridge in Palakkad District and thereby committed the offence under S.55(a) of the Abkari Act. On the basis of the said allegation, the above mentioned persons were arrested from the spot itself and they were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.377/2005. The 3rd accused is the petitioner herein. According to the petitioner, she is implicated and arrayed as 3rd accused for the sole reason that she happened to be the registered owner of the vehicle from where the contraband article was seized. Hence, according to the petitioner, no offence will lie against her, especially, when there is no allegations implicating or attributing any role against her in the commission of the offence.

3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. I have gone through annexure B report filed in Crime 377/2005 based upon which C.P.26/2006 is set up in the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Alathur. After taking me through annexure B report, the learned counsel submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner/A3 with respect to any role played by her in the commission of the offence. Going by annexure B report, it can be seen that what stated is that the vehicle bearing Reg.no.KL-3/L-4170 which is registered in the name of 3rd accused was used for transporting 700 litres of spirit by accused Nos. 1 and 2. The specific case of the prosecution is that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were arrested from the spot with the contraband article and seized the car used for transporting such contraband article. There is no case that the vehicle was used with the consent and knowledge of the petitioner who is the registered owner of the vehicle. No material is available on record to show any circumstance which capable of attributing intention of the petitioner to possess and transport the contraband article and to use her vehicle for the said purpose.

5. In this juncture, it is relevant to note an order passed by this Court, which produced along with the Crl. MC and marked as Annexure A. Annexure A is an order of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein by this Court in the very same crime. Going by annexure A order, it can be seen that, after instruction, the Public Prosecutor submitted that except the fact that the petitioner happened to be the owner of the car, there is absolutely no other material to implicate the petitioner in the Crime. In paragraph 4 of annexure A order, this Court found that there are indications available to suggest that the petitioner's husband was the one who permitted the accused 1 and 2 to use the vehicle. It is relevant to note that after considering the materials on record this Court has passed an order, in spite of the provisions namely S.41A of the Abkari Act, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Thus, the materials show that at any stretch of imagination, the petitioner cannot be implicated in the above crime.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner citing the decision reported in Sooraj v. Excise Inspector, 2002 (1) KLJ 739 submitted that the position is