The Court affirms the distinction between confiscation proceedings and criminal trials under the Kerala Abkari Act.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is an accused in Crime No. 589 of 2023 of Palode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District.

2. He is the RC owner of a vehicle No.KL-21-W-3719. The allegation against him was that on 03.04.2023, the Sub Inspector of Police, Palode Police Station, intercepted the said vehicle and on inspection, it was found that the vehicle was carrying 10 litres of illicit arrack, an unlicensed pistol and 19 rounds of ammunition, which are prohibited under the Kerala Abkari Act and the Arms Act . The petitioner, along with four others, was travelling in the car, which was taken into custody, and a case was registered under Sections 8 (1), 8(2) of the 1 of 1077 and Section 3 , 25(1-B)(a) of the , 1959.

3. The seized vehicle was produced before the Deputy Excise Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram, who entrusted the vehicle to the Sub Inspector of Police, Palode Police Station. On 20.05.2023, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, who is also the 1^st accused in the case referred above, under Section 67C of the Kerala Abkari Act , proposing confiscation of the vehicle. The petitioner had submitted his objections, and after hearing, the 4^th respondent passed orders confiscating the vehicle on 26.12.2023.

4. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the 3^rd respondent, which was also dismissed through Ext.P4 order, upholding the findings in Ext.P3 order. The petitioner had paid Rs.15,30,0001/-, the value assessed for getting the interim release of the vehicle. The confiscation orders took note of the defence raised by the petitioner and found that the petitioner had not taken sufficient care to prevent the offence alleged, and passed the orders impugned.

5. The criminal case registered against the petitioner and others is pending consideration. Though the petitioners challenged Section 67H of the Abkari Act, to the extent it allows the Government to retain the confiscated property even after an acquittal, as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, there are no valid grounds for entertaining the said challenge. The entire procedure for confiscation is covered by the Act and the Rules, and there is no challenge to the power to confiscate. The confiscation proceedings and the criminal proceedings are distinct and different. The fact that persons acquitted will not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the confiscation proceedings are also bad. However, an acquittal in a criminal case will certainly be a ground for the petitioner to challenge the confiscation proceedings.

6. In the instant case, since the criminal trial is pending, I am not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner at this stage. The challenge to the Section fails. In case the petitioner is acquitted of the charges, he can take such steps that are permissible under law to seek the release of the vehicle.

Reserving such liberty, this writ petition is dismissed.

SD/-