IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2591 of 2009 --------------------------------------- MP.1677/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: SANTHOSH KUMAR @ KANNAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.LATE RAMAKRISHNAN, POTTAKKATTIL HOUSE, MAMPILLY DESOM, KARAMUKKU VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT OASIS COMPLEX, C/O.JAYADAS, NEAR SEETHAL SUPERMARKET, PERINKAVU. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.840/2008 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2591 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Scorpio Car KL-09/S 4788 was found abandoned near Thrissur Indoor Stadium on 24.12.2008 at about 4.10 p.m. On search, it was found that 36 plastic jars, each containing 32 litres of spirit, were kept in the Car. The vehicle and the spirit were seized. Subsequently, petitioner was arrested and his Lancer Car, mobile phone and cash of Rs.10,88,000/- were seized. Petitioner filed M.P. No.1677/2009, under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure, for interim custody of the cash seized from him. By Annexure-I order, learned Magistrate, accepting the objection raised by the Investigating Officer, dismissed the petition. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-I order and to get interim custody of the cash. CRMC 2591/09 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the power of confiscation is restricted to liquor or the vehicle, which was used for committing the offence, as provided under Section 65 of Abkari Act and confiscation is not provided in respect of the cash seized from the petitioner and hence, learned Magistrate was not justified in dismissing the petition. Learned counsel also submitted that petitioner had produced records before the learned Magistrate to prove the source of money seized from him. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that confiscation proceedings are initiated and in such circumstances, petitioner is not entitled to get interim custody of the cash. 5. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Section 65 of Abkari Act, provides for the things, which are CRMC 2591/09 3 liable for confiscation, do not enable the State to confiscate the cash in the possession of an accused. Under Section 65 of Abkari Act, liquor, drug, materials, still, utensil, implement or apparatus in respect of or by means of which an offence has been committed is liable for confiscation. So also the receptacles, packages and coverings in which any such liquor, intoxicating drug, materials, still, utensil, implement or apparatus is or are found and the other contents if any, of the receptacles or packages in which the same is or are found and the animals, cart, vessels or other conveyance used for carrying the same are liable for confiscation. By invoking Section 65, confiscation of cash in possession of a person, suspected to have committed an offence, is not possible. Learned Magistrate was, therefore, not justified in dismissing the petition on the ground that it is liable for confiscation. CRMC 2591/09 4 Petition is allowed. Annexure-I order is quashed. M.P.No.1677/2009 is remanded to Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Thrissur for fresh disposal in accordance with law, considering the question whether the cash seized is that of the petitioner or not. Learned Magistrate can direct the petitioner to prove the source of money seized from him. 2nd November, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv