IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 22157 of 2003(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- V.K.SANKARAN, S/O. KANARAN, KAITHACHALIL HOUSE, VATTOLI.P.O., KOKKATTIL, VADAKORA AMSOM. BY ADV. MR.SUNNY MATHEW. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE ADDITIONAL EXCISE COMMISSIONER, TRIVANDRUM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.22157/2003-K: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. D5/4032/01 DTD. 29/01/03 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 10/APL/03/AC (X) ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 01/07/2003 ISSUED BY THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.22157 OF 2003 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner seeks an order quashing Exts.P1 and P2 proceedings resulting in confiscation of an autorikshaw, of which, the petitioner is the registered owner. That vehicle was apprehended by the excise party and was found to be transporting 2.550 litres of IMFL. An abkari case was registered under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act and Rule 8 of the Foreign Liquor Rules. The person who was plying the vehicle escaped. The vehicle was temporarily released to the petitioner who is the RC owner. 2. The crime case was ultimately referred as undetected, while proceedings followed for confiscation. The plea set up by the petitioner before the authorities at the first instance was that on 20.9.2001 (the date on which the vehicle was apprehended), the vehicle was stolen from Kuttiyadi town and the petitioner had launched a complaint with the Kuttiyadi WPC.22157/03 Page numbers Police. I may immediately notice that the records disclose that the vehicle was apprehended at 12 noon by the excise officers. The petitioner did not show to the excise officers the credibility of his contention that he had made a complaint to the Kuttiyadi Police. No receipt of having made the complaint or any copy of First Information Statement or Report was made available to the excise authorities. The authority at the first instance as well as the appellate authority disbelieved the version of the petitioner. In fact, before the appellate authority, the petitioner had contended that the vehicle is a contract carriage, in which, the passengers carry their goods and the driver of the vehicle cannot search the luggage of the passengers when they enter the vehicle. His case was that the vehicle was stolen by somebody on the noon of 20.9.2001. The petitioner did not make available the person who was his agent who had custody of the vehicle at the relevant time. The petitioner has no case that he himself was the driver of the vehicle. WPC.22157/03 Page numbers 3. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned decisions. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.27/5.