Confiscation under the Abkari Act operates independently of criminal acquittal, allowing denial of refund for related fees.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the RC owner of an Auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KL-56F-9380. On 05.06.2014, the Balussery Excise Range Officer seized the aforesaid vehicle, alleging transportation of Indian made Foreign Liquor, which led to the registration of Crime No.65/14 under Sections 55 (i) and 34(1)(a)(IV) of the Abkari Act . Thereafter, the said vehicle was produced before the second respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Excise, under Section 67B of the . Ext.P1 confiscation order was passed on 30.09.2014. The petitioner remitted the market value of the vehicle, which was fixed at Rs 50,000/- and took custody of the vehicle.

2. Crime No.65/14 charge sheeted by the Excise Inspector, Balussery Excise Range, was committed to the Sessions Court and numbered as S.C.No.1202/2014. The Sessions Court, after the trial, found that the petitioner was not guilty of the offence and acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C., through Ext.P4 judgment, dated

21.11.2015.

3. Based on the acquittal, the petitioner approached the respondent claiming a refund of Rs 50,000/- paid for the release of the vehicle after the confiscation. The said request was rejected through Ext.P7, on 26.03.2016, stating that they had the power to confiscate the vehicle.

4. There is no challenge to Ext.P7 order in the writ petition, and the only prayer is for a refund of Rs.50,000/.

5. A statement has been filed on behalf of the second respondent contending that the confiscation of the vehicle was carried out after giving a show cause notice under Section 67C(1) & (2) to the accused and the owner of the vehicle. It could not be established, in the said proceedings, that the vehicle was used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner or that the person in charge of the vehicle could not prove that reasonable and necessary precautions for preventing the use of the vehicle for illegal activities were taken.

6. It is also their contention that the confiscation proceedings under Section 67B is independent of the penal provisions of the Act and irrespective of whether the person is prosecuted or not for the non offence involved and irrespective of its outcome, in view of the obstante clause in of the Abkari Act , the vehicle involved in an is liable for confiscation. The learned Government Pleader also relies on the judgment of this Court in Deepak K. v. Commissioner of Excise, Tvm. and Others [ 2018 (2) KHC 336 ], which also considered this proposition and held that on an acquittal in the criminal case, the respondents are not bound to return the vehicle already confiscated.

7. Going through the provisions noticed above, it is clear that the confiscation proceedings and the prosecution are entirely different. In this case, the confiscation order stands, and the petitioner had also obtained custody of the vehicle after paying the market value. The acquittal in the criminal case has no bearing on the confiscation proceedings, and therefore, the request of the petitioner was rightly rejected through Ext.P7, which is not challenged in this writ petition. Under such circumstances, the request for a refund of the amount paid for obtaining custody cannot be accepted.

There is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed.