Confiscation of a vehicle is inappropriate if the owner is unaware of its use for illegal activities, especially when used for lawful purposes.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P7 order of the 3rd respondent ordering confiscation of a vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL 27 F 16 and Ext. P8 order of the 2^nd respondent dismissing an appeal filed against Ext.P7 order.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

2. The Petitioner is a senior citizen and the registered owner of a Renault Duster Motor car bearing the registration number referred to above. On 03.04.2020, the 4^th respondent and his party recovered 4.25 liters of Indian Made Foreign Liquor from the vehicle leading to the registration of Ext.P1 FIR. The vehicle of the petitioner was also seized under the provisions of the Abkari Act . According to the petitioner, the petitioner’s son along with certain other accused in Ext.P1 FIR had been using the vehicle to transport food from the community kitchen at the time of the Covid-19 pandemic pursuant to Ext.P2 permission given by the Sub Inspector of Police, Chengannur Police Station. It is submitted that the petitioner was totally unaware of the fact that his vehicle was used for the purposes of carrying Indian Made Foreign Liquor. It is submitted that all the accused in the criminal case have either been acquitted or the proceedings against them have been quashed by this Court and those orders have become final. It is submitted that in such circumstances, applying the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Navaru Swapna Reddy [2022 (1) KHC 563] the vehicle of the petitioner should not have been confiscated. It is submitted that the vehicle is presently in the custody of the petitioner following the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment in WP(C) No.23435/2020.

3. The learned Government Pleader vehemently opposed the grant of any relief to the petitioner. It is submitted that the judgment in Navaru Swapna Reddy (supra) was rendered in completely different circumstances. It is submitted that, in that case some quantity of Indian Made Foreign Liquor was being transported by a group of persons who had come to Kerala in connection with a pilgrimage to Sabarimala. It is submitted that the findings in Navaru Swapna Reddy (supra) must be confined to the facts of that case. It is further submitted that the facts of the present case show that at the time when there was a national lock down on account of Covid – 19 pandemic and when there was a complete closure of bar hotels, liquor outlets etc, around 4.5 liters of Indian Made Foreign Liquor was transported in a vehicle belonging to the petitioner which was permitted to ply only for the purpose of transporting food from the community kitchen. It is also submitted that the fact that criminal proceedings have been quashed or accused have been acquitted is no ground to interfere with the confiscation proceedings as it is settled law that confiscation proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent of each other and merely because the criminal proceedings have ended does not mean that the confiscation proceedings have also to be set aside.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The petitioner is a senior citizen. The documents produced along with the Writ Petition indicate that the petitioner had permitted his son and certain others to use the vehicle belonging to him for the purpose of transporting food from a community kitchen during the Covid-19 pandemic. While the learned Government Pleader may be right in contending that Navaru Swapna Reddy (supra) proceeded on a different factual basis, it appears that the Division Bench observed that when it cannot be found with certainty that the liquor was being transported with the knowledge of the owner of the vehicle, confiscation would not be an appropriate act by the authorities. Paragraph 16 of the judgment in Navaru Swapna Reddy (supra) reads thus:

“16. Kerala is not a State where sale and consumpt