IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4113 of 2008() ------------------------- CMP.2710/2008 of J.F.C.M, KOTHAMANGALAM CRIME NO.52/08 OF KOTHAMANGALAM EXCISE RANGE .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- VARKICHAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, VETTIYANKAL HOUSE, KALOOR P.O.,AYAVANA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.P.P.STELLA SRI.BIJIMON C.CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE EXCISE INSPECTOR KOTHAMANGALAM RANGE, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4113 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of November, 2008 ORDER The vehicle belonging to the petitioner - a motorcycle has been seized alleging that it was used for transporting 3.375 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The vehicle was seized and the seizure was reported to the learned Magistrate. The vehicle was handed over to the custody of the official for safe custody. The petitioner applied for release of the vehicle. That application was rejected. The petitioner has come before this Court to challenge that order. 2. The learned Magistrate had dismissed the petition on the ground that the officer has reported that the vehicle “is being produced before the authorised officer”. The learned Public Prosecutor was requested to take instructions. Has any steps being taken under Section 67 B of the Kerala Abkari Act ? Admittedly no notice even has been sent so far. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that it is only fair, just and reasonable to direct that the vehicle be released to the petitioner. In coming to this conclusion, the concerns to which the Supreme Court Crl.M.C. No.4113 of 2008 2 adverted to in the decision in Sunder bhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat [A.I.R 2003 S.C 638] do weigh with me considerably. Vehicles need not be exposed to sun and rain and should not be left to endure loss, damage and deterioration. Appropriate conditions can of course be imposed. I must take note of the fact that the vehicle involved is a motorcycle and that the alleged violation is only transporting 3.375 litres of licit Indian Made Foreign Liquor. 3. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C is allowed; b) The impugned order is set aside; c) The vehicle shall be released to the petitioner on the following terms and conditions: i) The petitioner shall produce all documents to prove that he is the owner of the vehicle entitled for possession; ii) The petitioner shall execute a bond for an amount equal to the value of the vehicle as ascertained by the learned Magistrate along with two solvent sureties each for the like sume to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate; iii) In such bond, the petitioner shall undertake that the vehicle shall be produced before the learned Magistrate or Crl.M.C. No.4113 of 2008 3 before the authority under Section 67 B of the Kerala Abkari Act if and after a final order directing confiscation is passed by such authority. iv) If the conditions are satisfied, the learned Magistrate shall issue a release order, whereupon the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner in whose soever the custody it be. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-