IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2426 of 2008() ------------------------------ CMP.640/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE J.F.C.M, KOTHAMANGALAM IN CR.NO.53/2007 OF KOTHAMANGALAM EXCISE RANGE .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ CHINNAMMA , AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. PAPPACHAN, KALLANAICKAL HOUSE 10TH MILE KARA, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE DEVIKULAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE EXCISE INSPECTOR,KOTHAMANGALAM RANGE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.2426 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25 th day of July, 2008 ORDER The petitioner, who claims himself to be the registered owner of an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-06 D 1931 involved in Crime No.53 of 2007 of Kothamangalam Excise Range for allegedly transporting 9 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor on 27.10.07 at 11 am, challenges Annexure A4 order dated 15.4.08 passed by the J.F.C.M, Kothamangalam rejecting his application filed under Section 451 and 457 Cr.P.C for interim custody of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate has observed that the vehicle has not been produced before the court but was produced before the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Ernakulam. The report of the Excise Inspector is also to the effect that the vehicle has been produced before the Assistant Excise Commissioner for confiscating the vehicle as per rules. If so, the remedy of the petitioner is to move the authorised officer under rule 4(2) of the Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles) Rules 1996. Merely because this Court has held in Crl.R.P.No. 2426 of 2008 2 Abdurahiman v. The Excise Inspector & Another (2006(1) KLD(Cri)256) that the Magistrate has jurisdiction to release the vehicle under Section 451 Cr.P.C, it does not follow that in every case, the Magistrates are bound to grant interim release of vehicles involved in Abkari offences, particularly when the petitioner has got a remedy under Rule 4(2) of the said Rules. Hence without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the authorised officer as above this revision is dismissed. Dated this the 25 th day of July, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj