The court emphasized the necessity of providing sufficient reasoning for denying interim release of seized property under relevant statutes.

1 Petitioner challenges Annexure B order passed by the court below by which the request of the petitioner for interim release of his autorikshaw bearing registration No. KL 10 G 5239 was rejected. The above autorikshaw was seized by the Excise officers in connection with Crime No. 12 of 2005 of Tirur Excise Range on the allegation that the autorikshaw was used for transporting contraband articles and from the autorikshaw, 86.625 litres of IMFL without having any permit or licence for transporting the same, was found. Petitioner is the third accused in the above case. The petitioner filed an application under S.451 CrPC for the interim release of the vehicle. It appears from the order under challenge, Annexure B, that the Trial Court disallowed the claim for interim custody of the vehicle on the ground that the vehicle is liable for confiscation under the provisions of the Abkari Act. It appears from the order that no other reason is stated. But as per S.451 CrPC and also as per the provisions of S.52 of the Abkari Act, either the Magistrate or the authorised officer has got jurisdiction to release any property, vehicle, vessel or any other thing used for the commission of an offence punishable under the provisions of the Abkari Act, if it is found by the Magistrate or the officer as the case may be that the long detaining of the vehicle, vessel etc will cause prejudice to the owner of the vehicle. Nothing that sort of reasons are forthcoming in Annexure B order. In the above circumstances, the order under challenge is set aside and the lower court is directed to reconsider the application afresh and pass orders in accordance with law. This shall be done within 15 days of the receipt of a copy of this order.