IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30988 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.C. JOSEPH, S/O. CHACKO, KARAKKATTU HOUSE, KILIYANTHARA.P.O, MUDIYARANI, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN SRI.ANIL.D.KAITHAKKAL RESPONDENT: --------------- THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE (ENFORCEMENT), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.30988 OF 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ This Writ Petition is filed, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking interference with an order passed under the Abkari Act confiscating a vehicle and the appellate order affirming it. 2. The petitioner would project the following case: The petitioner's vehicle, a lorry, was stolen from a petrol pump in the night of 11.4.2007 and he lodged a complaint in that regard before the Iritty Police Station and later filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Mattannur, which forwarded it for investigation. Thereafter, the vehicle was found to have been put to use with a changed registration number and was involved in transporting 58 plastic cans of 35 litres capacity each filled with illicit spirit, such material being concealed in a cabin under the platform. 3. The facts appear to show that vehicle bearing registration number TN-28Q/4129 came to police custody on account of alleged offences punishable under Section 304A and Section 279 of the Indian W.P.(C) No.30988/2009 2 Penal Code. While the vehicle was lying in police custody, on information, the vehicle was further searched and an additional floor underneath the cabin was traced. It was accordingly that violation of Abkari law was noticed. The Narcotic Cell, Alappuzha, through the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the investigating officer, had come to the conclusion that the vehicle was not actually stolen as reported by the petitioner, but, the petitioner, the registered owner, had authorised his younger brother, namely, Ajeesh @ Aji to run business and the said Ajeesh and one Francis @ Good Luch Baba, jointly used the vehicle for smuggling spirit. They were arrested on 25.12.2008 and remanded. The Deputy Superintendent of Police concluded that there is no evidence to connect the petitioner, the registered owner, to the abkari crime. 4. With the aforesaid material and having regard to the file, including the application of the petitioner, the competent authority concluded that the petitioner had not taken necessary precautions due from a registered owner against the misuse of the vehicle, which originally had registration number KL-58/1954. The learned counsel for the petitioner on query by the Court does not dispute that the petitioner had put his brother Ajeesh @ Aji in custody of the vehicle. W.P.(C) No.30988/2009 3 5. With the aforesaid materials, in the exercise of jurisdiction of confiscation, the initial authority's finding stand confirmed by the appellate authority. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the information given by the Deputy Superintendent of Police was not put to the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner candidly stated on query by the court that no such ground was projected before the appellate authority. 6. With the aforesaid, I do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned decision, which have been rendered stating reasons and after adverting to the relevant materials. Those cannot be treated as unavailable on the records as disclosed and admitted. The Writ Petition therefore fails. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed in limine. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge ps