IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1898 of 2009() ------------------------------ CMP.3538/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOTTARAKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------- BINU,S/O.VIJAYAN,BINDUBHAVANAM VEEDU, THEVALAPPURAM MURI,NEDUVATHOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1898 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of June, 2009. ORDER This revision is in challenge of order dated 8.5.2009 on C.M.P.No.3538 of 2009 of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Kottarakkara. Case is that the vehicle allegedly belonging to the petitioner was seized by the Excise Officials in connection with Crime No.41 of 2009 of Ezhukone Excise Range on the allegation that it was used for transportation of twenty litres of Indian made foreign liquor. Matter was reported to the learned magistrate and the vehicle was produced before the Assistant Excise Commissioner, the authorised officer empowered to order confiscation of the vehicle. Petitioner moved C.M.P.No.3538 of 2009 before learned magistrate seeking interim custody of the vehicle. That petition was dismissed by the impugned order as the vehicle has been produced before the authorised officer. 2. I heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor who took notice for respondent. The Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Jabbar (2009 (2) KLT 709) has held, in respect of seizure of vehicle allegedly involved in abkari offences that the High Court should not interfere when statutory remedy is Crl.R.P.No.1898/2009 2 available. Going by the decision of the Apex Court petitioner has to approach the authorised officer seeking appropriate relief. Learned magistrate has correctly disallowed the prayer. There is no reason to interfere in revision. Revision petition fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks