IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 30TH APRIL 2010 / 10TH VAISAKHA 1932 CRL.MC.NO. 1442 OF 2010() ------------------------- CRMP.2580/2010 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KARUNAGAPPALLY .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED -------------------------------------- ANIL KUMAR, S/O.KARUNAKARAN PILLAI, AMBIKA SADANAM, PULIYOOR VANCHI SOUTH, THODIYOOR VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.M. FEROZ THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL.M.C. No.1442 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of April, 2010 O R D E R --------------- This petition is in challenge of the order dated 27.2.2010 on C.M.P. No.2580 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Karunagappally pertaining to Crime No.52 of 2010 of Karunagappally Police Station. The motor cycle belonging to the petitioner was taken to custody for alleged illicit transportation of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in excess of the permitted quantity. Petitioner sought release of the vehicle under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Magistrate observed that since seizure of the vehicle has already been reported to the appropriate authority under the Abkari Act for confiscation petitioner has to approach that authority for release of the vehicle. It is contended by learned counsel placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujrat (2002) 10 SCC 283) that the criminal court has ample power to order release of the vehicle. Petition is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The decision relied on by the learned counsel concerned property which was not liable for confiscation under any Statute. In CRL. M.C. No.1442 of 2010 -: 2 :- the said decision the Supreme Court has issued guidelines as to disposal of property involved in criminal cases pending before court for trial. The Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Jabbar (2009 [2] KLT 709 (SC) referring to confiscation of vehicles under the Abkari Act stated that when the authorised officer has ordered release of a vehicle seized for an abkari offence on furnishing of bank guarantee High Court shall not interfere under Section 67B & F of the Abkari Act. On going through the decision, in paragraph 4 it is stated that where an authorised officer seizes and detains any property specified or produced before an authorised officer under sub-sec.(1) of Sec.67 B of the Abkari Act and he is satisfied that an offence under the Abkari Act has been committed in relation to or by means of that property and that such property is liable to be confiscated under the Abkari Act such authorised officer may whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the commission of such offence order confiscation of the property. The decision reveals that under the Abkari Act whether or not a criminal case is instituted, the appropriate authority can order confiscation of the vehicle used for commission of the offence. Here report of the police is that the vehicle used for commission of offence under the Abkari Act has been produced before the Excise CRL. M.C. No.1442 of 2010 -: 3 :- Commissioner for appropriate action. In that situation learned Magistrate directed petitioner to approach the appropriate authority and seek appropriate relief. I do not find any illegality in the order under challenge. Hence without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority, this petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv