IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5445 of 2007(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- E.J.CHACKO @ JACOB, S/O.JOSEPH, ELAVANAPARA,2/69, PADICHIRA P.O,PULPALLY, WAYNAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAFFEEKH.K RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL.EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, MUTTIL,KALPETTA,WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. THE TREASURY OFFICER,SUB TREASURY SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 5445 of 2007 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.11.04 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT CONFISCATING PETITIONER'S VEHICLE EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.7.06 IN SC.NO.288/01 of the ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, S.BATHERY EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.2.00 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN O.P.4270/00 EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.1.06 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.1.06 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).5445/2007 -------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner was the registered owner of a Jeep bearing registration No.KL/10G 1978. It is stated that on 10.1.2000, 630 packets of arrack was recovered from the vehicle. The vehicle was seized and Crime No.3/2000 was registered by the Thalapuzha Police Station. Finally three accused were charge sheeted in S.C.No.288/01. In the meanwhile, confiscation proceedings were initiated. During the pendency of such proceedings, petitioner got the interim custody of his vehicle by making treasury deposit of Rs.1,27,000/-. Confiscation proceedings were finalized by order dated 10.9.2004 and the vehicle was confiscated. The appeal filed against the said order was rejected by order dated 12.1.2005. Thereupon, the petitioner was called upon to produce the vehicle and he did not comply with the order as a result of which the security deposit made was forfeited. 2. Subsequently by Ext.P2 judgment, the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) II, Kalpetta, acquitted the accused in S.C.288/2001. That judgment was rendered on 21.7.2006. W.P.(C).5445/07 2 Subsequently on the strength of that judgment, petitioner sought refund of the security deposit, which was forfeited. That was not allowed and therefore the writ petition is filed. 3. As can be seen from the above, the claim for refund is made entirely on the strength of the judgment of the Sessions Court, by which the accused was acquitted. 4. The order of confiscation and the order rejecting the appeal were not challenged and has attained finality. If that be so, the respondents cannot be faulted for forfeiting the security deposit. The acquittal by the Criminal Court is inconsequential insofar as the confiscation proceedings are concerned. It has been so held in the judgment in Shaiju v. Assistant Excise Commissioner (2008 (3) KLT 78). Therefore, the petitioner cannot take advantage of Ext.P2 judgment and seek release of the security deposit. 5. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs