IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 W.A.No. 1663 of 2008 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.36669/2007 DATED 17/06/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- SHAIJU, S/O.OUSEPH KUTTY, AGED 28, THETTAYIL VEEDU, ILLITHODU KARA, MALAYATOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JAIJI ITTEN SRI.PRAMOD JAIJI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. 2. ADDITIONAL EXCISE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1663 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 20th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.36669 of 2007 dated 17th June, 2008, the petitioner in the writ petition has presented this writ appeal. By the impugned order the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition. 2. The facts in brief are: The petitioner claims that he is the registered owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-7 AP 9646. The vehicle had been seized by the authorities under the provisions of the Abkari Act on the ground that the vehicle in question was being used for transportation of illicit arrack. 3. The Assistant Excise Commissioner, Excise Division Office, Ernakulam in Crime No.5 of 2005 has passed an order dated 22.3.2007 confiscating the vehicle under the provisions of the Abkari Act. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order of confiscation passed by the Assistant Excise Commissioner had preferred an appeal before the Additional Excise Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram. By Ext.P1 order the appellate authority has allowed the appeal in part directing the authorities under the Abkari Act to release W.A.No.1663 of 2008 the vehicle subject to the petitioner complying with certain conditions stated in the order itself. 5. In the writ petition filed, the one and the only prayer that was sought for by the petitioner is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the authorities under the provisions of the Abkari Act to release the motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-7 AP 9646 without imposing any conditions whatsoever. 5. The main case of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that since the petitioner has been acquitted in the proceedings before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam in S.C.No.143 of 2007, the respondents should release the vehicle to him without imposing any conditions whatsoever. 6. In support of that contention the petitioner had placed reliance on Section 67(B) of the Abkari Act. The learned Single Judge being of the opinion that the said provision would not assist the petitioner in any manner whatsoever, has rejected the writ petition. That is how the present writ appeal is filed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that since the Sessions Court has acquitted the appellant, the respondents are bound to release the vehicle in favour of the appellant without imposing any conditions whatsoever. W.A.No.1663 of 2008 8. At the outset, we would like to state that the Sessions Court while disposing of S.C.No.143 of 2007 has only given the benefit of doubt to the appellant, in the sense, the Sessions Court has not given a clean chit to the appellant. Merely because the appellant is acquitted, it does not mean that the orders passed by the confiscating authority and the orders passed by the first appellate authority would automatically require to be set aside. These are parallel proceedings. Merely because in one proceedings the appellant has been acquitted, it does not mean that the confiscation proceedings would also come to an end. 9. Keeping this aspect of the matter in view, the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has rightly rejected the writ petition. Therefore, this writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns