ORDER

The petitioner claims to be the owner entitled to possession of a Maruthi Omni van which was seized by the Excise officials on the allegation that it was used for illicit transportation of liquor. The person who was arrested from the vehicle is one who is involved in, at least, three excise crimes, alleged the police.

2. The petitioner applied for release of the vehicle before the learned Magistrate. The application was opposed. The learned Magistrate rejected the same on the ground that the offence is triable exclusively by a Court of Session.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order. He submits that the dictum in the decision reported inSunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat ( AIR 2003 SC 638 ) has not been given effect to. The vehicle is exposed to sun and rain unnecessarily from 14/3/07. It may be ensured that the vehicle is not subjected to further loss and deterioration, prays the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer. However, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the proceedings under Sec.67B of the Kerala Abkari Act are contemplated and the vehicle has been produced before the authorised offic