Acquittal in criminal proceedings is relevant to confiscation under the Abkari Act, and arbitrary orders lacking reasoning are subject to judicial review.

JUDGMENT :

Syam Kumar V.M., J.

This Writ Appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 16.08.2023 in W.P. (C) No.20067 of 2014. Respondent was the petitioner in the said W.P.(C).

2. The Writ Petition was filed by the respondent seeking the following prayers :

“(i) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction quashing Exts.P6, P8 and P9 holding that the petitioner's vehicle was used by the workshop owner without the petitioner's consent and knowledge and that the same is not liable to be confiscated ;

(ii) allow such other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case in the interest of justice ; and (iii) allow the costs of this proceedings to the petitioner.”

3. The case of the respondent was that he is the owner of a Fiat Punto Motor car bearing registration No.KL-43/B-8546, which was involved in Crime No.41 of 2013 of Kayamkulam Excise Range for illegal transportation of liquor. He contended that he had entrusted the car to a workshop on 13.05.2013 for repairs, and without his knowledge or consent, the said vehicle was used by the workshop owner for transporting contraband. When the car was taken into custody, the respondent had lodged a case before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kadavanthra Police Station, against the workshop owner alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating. While so Ext.P4 showcause notice was issued to the respondent by the 4^th appellant confiscating the vehicle and thereafter Ext.P6 order dated 28.06.2013 was issued holding that the respondent had failed to take possible precaution against the misuse of the vehicle, and consequently ordering the car owned by the respondent to be confiscated to the Government with all its accessories. Respondent had challenged Ext.P6 by filing an appeal before the 3^rd appellant invoking Section 67E of the Abkari Act . The said appeal was dismissed vide Ext.P8 order dated 04.11.2013 confirming Ext.P6 order rendered by the 4^th appellant. It was further stated in Ext.P8 order that the vehicle can be released to the respondent if he pays the market value of the vehicle as decided by the Mechanical Engineer of the Excise Department. The respondent had filed a revision which was also dismissed vide Ext.P9 order dated 05.05.2014. Aggrieved by Exts.P6, P8 and P9 and terming them as unjust and illegal, the Writ Petition had been filed. The Single Bench had vide interim order dated 05.08.2014, directed release of the vehicle to the respondent upon furnishing value of the vehicle. The said order was complied with. Subsequently, the W.P.(C) was disposed of vide the impugned judgment, directing the appellants to refund the amount remitted by the respondent towards the value of the vehicle, primarily taking note of the fact that the respondent had been acquitted in Sessions Case bearing No.33 of 2016 vide judgment dated 31.03.2022. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, this appeal has been filed.

4. Heard Sri.K.P.Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the appellants and Sri.George Cherian, Senior Advocate, instructed by Smt.Latha Susan Cherian, Advocate for the respondent.

5. The learned Senior Government Pleader contended that the learned Single Judge had erred in overlooking the settled legal position of law that acquittal of an accused in criminal proceedings is not a ground to quash the proceedings under Section 67B of the Abkari Act . Relying on the said provision of the Abkari Act , it is contended that the fate of the confiscation proceedings can be decided only by the competent authori