Confiscation orders require satisfaction of offense proof; mere doubts in prosecution can quash them.

JUDGMENT

The writ petition challenges Exts.P2 and P3 orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Ernakulam and the Additional Excise Commissioner, respectively, confiscating the vehicle involved in CR No.964/2013 of the Harbour Police Station.

2. It is alleged that the petitioner had transported 31.500 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) in a Mahindra Bolero Jeep bearing registration No. KL-05-V-2930. CR No.964/2013 of the Harbour Police Station was registered under sections 13 read with 63 of the Abkari Act . The vehicle was produced before the authorized Officer and entrusted to the Excise Inspector, Excise Range Office, Mamala, for keeping in safe custody.

3. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner following the registration of the above crime as to why the vehicle should not be confiscated by the Government. The petitioner had also filed W.P.(C) No. 98/2014, praying forthe release of the vehicle. As per the order passed by this Court, the vehicle was released to the owner by remitting an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- assessed by the Mechanical Engineer (Excise) in TSA No. 3476 dated 14.3.2014. Finding that the chemical analysis certificate proved the fact that the contraband transported by means of the vehicle was IMFL, and the owner did not take adequate measures to prevent the misuse of the vehicle, the Deputy Excise Commissioner passed orders confiscating the vehicle in question, invoking Section 67 B (2) of the Abkari Act . Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Excise Commissioner, which was also rejected, thereby confirming the findings of the Deputy Commissioner, which are impugned in this writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the judgment in CC No. 863/2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – I, Kochi dated 31.01.2018 which acquitted the petitioner with the finding that the prosecution case itself is doubtful and that it was not possible to believe with certainty that the liquor bottles allegedly seized from the accused and the samples taken from the said bottles ultimately reached the chemical examiner who prepared Ext.P7 and therefore, it was held that the story put forward by the prosecution through PW1 to PW3 was not believable.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment of this Court dated 25.11.2025 in W.P.(Crl) 1631/2025 submitted that a reading of Sections 65 and 67B of the Abkari Act would show that the authorised officer may confiscate the property in cases where an offence is committed in respect of or by means of the property and before ordering the confiscation of property, the authorized officer must be satisfied that the offence under the Act has been committed in respect of or by means of that property and that the said property is liable for confiscation. It is argued that the word ‘may’ used in Section 67B (2) would indicate that the power conferred on the authorised officer to order confiscation of property is discretionary and the authorised officer, by applying an objective test, must conclude that the property is liable for confiscation.

6. It is argued based on the findings in the judgment that the prosecution story itself is doubtful, and in said circumstances, there is no warrant for upholding the confiscation.

7. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Deepak K. v. Commissioner of Excise, Tvm [ 2018(2) KHC 336 ] as well as the judgment in WA No.79/2024. He also relied on the judgment of this Court in Shaiju v. Assistant Excise Commissioner [ 2008(2) KHC 952 ] to contend that the confiscation proceedings and the criminal proceedings are independent of each other.

8.