Simultaneous confiscation proceedings cannot be sustained after an acquittal in a criminal case.

K. NATARAJAN . J This Writ Appeal is filed by the appellant/R.C. owner challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2071/2019 dated 23.06.2025, wherein the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

2. We have heard the arrangements of the learned coun-

sel for the appellant as well as the learned Senior Government Pleader.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was the R.C. owner of the jeep bearing registration number KL-2D-3594, which was seized by the Excise Range Office, Vamanapuram, Thiruvananthapuram District, on the ground that the vehicle was found carrying 7.750 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor on 31.07.2013. Subsequently, a prosecution was launched against the petitioner in Sessions Case No. 1252/2014, arising out of Crime No. 49/2013 of the Vamanapuram Excise Range Office, for offences punishable under Section 55 (a) and (i) of the Abkari Act .

4. Consequently, the petitioner was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 31.05.2023. Simultaneously, the Excise Commissioner initiated confiscation proceedings to seize the vehicle involved in the offence. The petitioner challenged the same before the learned Single Judge of this Court in a writ petition, contending that once the criminal case had ended in acquittal, the confiscation proceedings could not be initiated, and therefore prayed for the quashing of the same. However the learned single judge, after hearing both sides dismissed the petition, hence the petitioner/ R.C Owner before this court under this appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously contended that the learned Single Judge, while passing the judg- ment, committed an error in dismissing the petition, wherein, in a similar case, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Abdul Vahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2022 KHC 6250 has held that, when the accused is acquitted in a criminal case, the Excise De- partment cannot simultaneously confiscate the same vehicle, as the right is protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of In- dia. The same was not properly considered, and hence, the appel-

lant prayed for setting aside the judgment.

6. The learned counsel also relied up on the judgment of this court in Writ Appeal No. 1887/2025 the Excise Commis-

sioner v. K.M Varghese.

7. The learned Senior Government Pleader supported the order of the learned Single Judge. However, he fairly admitted the judgment passed by this Court in the above-mentioned Writ Ap-

peal, as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

8. Considering the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records.

9. It is admittedly revealed that under the Abkari Act , a criminal proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in Crime No. 49/2013 by the Vamanapuram Excise Range Office for of- fences under Sections 55 (a) and (i) of the . The peti- tioner faced the trial and was acquitted in Sessions Case No. 1252/2014 by judgment dated 31.05.2023 delivered by the First Additional Asst. Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. No appeal has been filed by the State against this judgment, and the same has therefore attained finality.

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the Abdul Vahab case (supra), has held that where an accused is acquitted in a criminal case, simultaneous confiscation proceedings based on the same crime cannot be sustained. Based on the said judgment, this Court, in Writ Appeal No. 1887/2025 dated 20.01.2026, dismissed the State’s appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2409/2023 dated 12.03.2025.

11. Held at para 8, this Court relied upon the jud