IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932 CRL.MC.NO. 270 OF 2011() --------------------------------------- (OR NO.2 OF 20111, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, NILAKKAL) PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------- 1. M.N.SHAJAHAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED VASIM RAWTHER, NEDIYAKALAYIL HOUSE CHITTAR-SEETHATHODE VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST(R.C.OWNER) 2. JOBIL EASOW,AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.EASOW,UTHIMKATTIL VEETIL, CHITTAR-SEETHATHODE VILLAGE,RANNI TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT(DRIVER/ACCUSED) BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE EXCISE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER O/O.THE EXCISE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,PATHANAMTHITTA 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, NILACKAL 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.270 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 03rd day of February, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner No.2 is the accused in O.R. No.2 of 2011 of the Excise Range Office, Nilakkal for offences punishable under Sections 55(a) and 67B of the Abkari Act (for short, “the Act”). Case is that on 12.01.2011 second petitioner-accused was found possessing and in transit of 2.12 litres of IMFL in a vehicle through an area over which there was a total ban of liquor as per Notification G.O(MS) No.240/10, dated 18.10.2010. The vehicle was taken to custody. Petitioner No.1 being the registered owner of the vehicle preferred Annexure-2, application before respondent No.1 who is said to be the authorised officer for interim custody of the vehicle. In this petition it is contended that no offence as alleged is made out, violation of the Notification cannot be a violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules and at any rate no offence under Section 55(a) of the Act is committed. The prayer is to order release of the vehicle to the first petitioner. 2. Though various contentions are raised as to the tenability of the crime and occurrence report against the second CRL.M.C. No.270 of 2011 -: 2 :- accused learned counsel did not pursue those contentions at the time of hearing, without prejudice to the right of petitioners to raise those contentions before the appropriate authority at the appropriate time. The request before me is only to release the vehicle on interim custody. The Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles) Rules 1996 provides the manner for interim release of vehicles which are liable to the confiscated. First petitioner has already made Annexure-2, application before the authorised officer. That authority has to dispose of that application as provided under law. Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of directing respondent No.1, the authorised officer to dispose of Annexure-2, application preferred before him by the first petitioner for interim custody of the vehicle as early as possible and as provided under law. I make it clear it will be open to the petitioners to take appropriate contentions as to the tenability of the offences attributed to the second petitioner-accused before the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv