IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Sebastain, S/o Joseph – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.M.C. Nos. 8166, 9469 & 9663 of 2023
Decided on : 20-12-2023
Abkari Act - Sec. 53B & Sec. 67B - Confiscation of Vehicles.
Fact of the Case:
The cases involved challenges to the conditions imposed for the release of vehicles seized under the Abkari Act. The main issue was whether the vehicles were used for committing any offence under the Act, and if so, whether the conditions for release were sustainable.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the vehicles were used for committing offences under the Abkari Act based on prima facie evidence presented by the prosecution. The Court held that the conditions imposed for the release of the vehicles were sustainable and dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Cases.
Issues: The main issue was whether the vehicles were used for committing any offence under the Abkari Act and whether the conditions for release were sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the term 'used for committing an offence' has a wide meaning and that there must be prima facie evidence to show that the vehicle is used for committing any offence under the Abkari Act. The Court also emphasized that if the manner of doing a particular action is prescribed under the statute, that act must be done in that manner alone.
Final Decision: The Criminal Miscellaneous Cases were dismissed as the Court found no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioners.
ORDER :
The same points are raised in these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases and therefore, I am disposing of these cases by a common order. The main point to be decided in these cases is, when the court invokes Sec.53B of the Abkari Act (for short 'the Act'), the court needs to decide the question, whether prima facie, the confiscation of a vehicle as per the Act is necessary for the purpose of directing the execution of a bond by way of cash security for releasing the vehicle or whether it can be exempted if the court finds that, prima facie confiscation of the vehicle as per the Act is not necessary.
2. I will narrate the facts in Crl.M.C. No. 9469/2023 first. The petitioner is arrayed as accused in Crime No. 39/2023 of Thiruvananthapuram Excise Range, Thiruvananthapuram District alleging offences punishable under Sec. 55(a), 55H and 67B of the Act. The crime was registered on the basis of a search conducted at the residence of the petitioner by which 38.940 litres of beer and 10.250 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor are alleged to be seized from the house. Annexure-I is the seizure mahazar in Crime No. 39/2023 of Thiruvananthapuram Excise Range. During the course of seizure of the contraband articles from the house of the petitioner, the vehicle Tata 407 Gold (goods carriage) bearing Regn.No. KL-01-CV-6454 was seized by the Police. Annexure-II is the inventory prepared on seizing the vehicle. The petitioner has submitted Crl.M.P. No. 1442/2023 in Crime No. 39/2023 of Thiruvananthapuram Excise Range seeking release of the vehicle under Sec. 457 Cr.P.C. Annexure-III is the petition filed under Sec. 457 Cr.P.C. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram allowed the petition as per Annexure-IV order. The petitioner is mainly aggrieved by condition No.1 in Annexure-IV order by which the petitioner is directed to furnish Rs. 8,75,000/-as cash security for producing the vehicle before the court or such authority as and when required.
3. Crl.M.C. No. 8166/2023 is filed challenging the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, North Paravur in CMP No. 3834/2023 in Crime No. 433 of 2023 of Vadakkekara Police Station. The petitioner in this case is the sole accused in Crime No. 433/2023 of Vadakkekara Police Station, which was registered alleging offence punishable under Sec. 55(i) of the Act.
4. The prosecution case is that on 10.07.2023 at 7.45 pm, the detecting officer found the accused selling Indian Made Foreign Liquor and the liquor for sale was kept in the car bearing regn. No. KL-07-BP-1969 and the accused was arrested and the vehicle was seized as per law. The petitioner who is the accused filed a petition claiming the vehicle under Sec. 451 Cr.P.C. As per Annexure-A1, the petition was allowed, but the petitioner is directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 60,000/-which is the value of the vehicle as a condition for release. According to the petitioner, even as per the prosecution case, the vehicle was found lying idle at the residence of the petitioner and it was not in a moving condition. It is submitted that the car was seized and the prosecution has no case that any further liquor was found from the vehicle. Hence, the condition to deposit the amount invoking the powers under Sec.53B of the Act is unsustainable is the contention. Hence, this Crl.M.C. is filed to set aside condition No.1 in Annexure-A1 order.
5. Crl.M.C. No. 9663/2023 is filed challenging condition No. 1 in Annexure-C order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chittur. The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Regn.No. KL-64-J-7402, which is a Mahindra Bolero Pickup. The said vehicle was seized by the respondents in connection with Crime No. 20/2023 of Excise Range Office, Chittur. Annexure-A is the Crime and Occurrence Report. According to Annexure-A Crime Report, on 22.02.2023 at 9.10 am, the accused was found with 2400 litres of toddy in Mahindra Bolero Pickup bearing Regn. No. Kl-64-J
Karthikeyan v. Deputy Commissioner of Excise
K. Subair Vs. Assistant Excise Commisisoner and Others
Nikhil T.M. v. Deputy Excise Commissioner
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the term 'used for committing an offence' under the Abkari Act has a wide meaning and that there must be prima facie evidence to show that the....
The outcome of the criminal case has no bearing on the confiscation proceedings under the Abkari Act, and the authorized officer may order confiscation of a vehicle involved in an Abkari offence, irr....
Point of law : Sec.67(C) of the Abkari Act says that no order confiscating any property shall be made under Sec.67B unless the person from whom the same is seized, is given a notice in writing inform....
The discretion of authorized officers in offering the option of paying a fine in lieu of confiscation and the absence of an absolute right for the owner of the confiscated vehicle to exercise this op....
Provisions in Section 67B of the Act operate independent of Section 67C, it is not to be taken that when an owner does not invoke the provision in Section 67C, there should be confiscation under Sect....
Acquittal in criminal proceedings is relevant to confiscation under the Abkari Act, and arbitrary orders lacking reasoning are subject to judicial review.
The court can allow the release of a seized vehicle on conditions despite ongoing confiscation proceedings if initial proceedings were not timely initiated.
A vehicle linked to an offence under the Kerala Abkari Act cannot be released without a cash deposit as determined by relevant rules and case law.
Confiscation of vehicles under the NDPS Act must follow the prescribed procedural safeguards; failure to provide a hearing renders the order illegal.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.