Confiscation of a vehicle is invalid if the accused has been acquitted in related criminal proceedings, reinforcing property rights.

K. NATARAJAN, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellants/respondents in writ petition to set aside the judgment for having allowed the writ petition, WP(C) No.2409/2023 filed by the respondent/

petitioner by the Learned Single Judge.

2. We have heard the arguments of the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner.

3. The case of the respondent/petitioner before the Learned Single Judge is that the respondent/petitioner is the registered owner of the Renault Duster Motor car bearing Reg.No.KL-27 F16 and which was seized by the Excise department on 03.04.2020 on the ground that the vehicle was carried Indian made Foreign Liquor of 4.25 liters. An FIR has been lodged under the Abkari Act against 3 persons including the son of this respondent/petitioner. Subsequently, the son of the respondent/petitioner, Subin Mathew Varghese, already approached the High Court by filing Crl.M.C. No.1132/2021 under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code against him, the FIR has been quashed. Subsequently, charges levelled against the accused Nos.1 & 2 has also ended in acquittal.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner has contended that the confiscation proceedings initiated by the Abkari Excise Commissioner is not sustainable. In order to quash the confiscation proceedings, he approached the Learned Single Judge of this Court by filing writ petition and the Learned Single Judge after considering the arguments, relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench, allowed the writ petition and quashed the confiscation proceedings. Accordingly, these appellants/ Excise department are before this Court.

5. The learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the appellants has vehemently contended that the learned Single Judge of this Court committed error in allowing the writ petition only on the ground of quashing the FIR against accused No.3 and acquittal made against accused 1 & 2, confiscation proceedings cannot be quashed and prayed for setting aside the order and to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

7. Having heard the arguments and perused the records. On perusal of the same, which reveals that admittedly FIR was registered against three persons by the Thiruvalla Police under the Excise Act for having carrying out the liquors of 4.25 Liters during the lock down period. Admittedly, the learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.M.C.No.1132/2021 quashing the FIR as against the accused No.3 who is none other than the son of the very respondent/petitioner, RC owner of the vehicle. Subsequently, the prosecution has been launched against the accused Nos.1 and 2 before the Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta Division in Sessions Case No.422/2021 and the said case was ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 06.10.2023. On this background of the admitted fact, now the confiscation order passed by the Abkari Excise Commissioner, Abkari department, is sustainable under the law has been challenged before the learned Single Judge of this Court.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Vahab (Supra) at para 20 and 21 has held as under :-

“20. In the present case, the appellant’s truck was confiscated on account of the criminal proceedings alone and therefore, under the applicable law, the vehicle cannot be withheld and then confiscated by the State, when the original proceedings have culm