IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1186 of 2008 ------------------------- CMP.1357/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHITTUR CRIME NO. 322/2007 OF KOZHINJAMPARA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONER/R.C.OWNER -------------------------------- SUDHEEP RAJAN, S/O.T.R.RAJAN, CHERUVEEDU, VELLOOR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANTS AND ACCUSED ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOZHINJAMPARA POLICE STATION. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION. 4. SMITHESH, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, PLAMOOTTIL, NOORANADU, PAYYANALLUR, ALAPPUZHA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No. 1186 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of March, 2008 ORDER Petitioner, who claims to be the registered owner of a Maruti 800 car bearing registration No. KL-5K-997 involved in Crime No.322/2007 of Kozhinjampara Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act for allegedly transporting 630 litres of spirit, challenges the order dated 18-2-2008 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittur dismissing the petition (C.M.P.No.1357/2008 in Crime No.322/2007) filed by the petitioner for interim custody of the vehicle under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate has observed that the vehicle is liable for confiscation proceedings under the provisions of the Abkari Act. 2. The view taken by the learned Magistrate is right. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the vehicle has been entrusted with the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Palakkad for initiating confiscation proceedings. If so, the remedy available to the petitioner is to move the authorized officer under Rule 4(2) of CRMC.1186/2008 -2- the Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles)Rules, 1996. Without prejudice to the said right of the petitioner to move the authorized officer for interim release of the vehicle, this Crl.M.C.is disposed of. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE ks.