High Court Kerala High Court

T.Muhammed Firoz vs S.H.O. on 26 February, 2007

Kerala High Court
T.Muhammed Firoz vs S.H.O. on 26 February, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 4943 of 2007(L)


1. T.MUHAMMED FIROZ, AGED 49 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. S.H.O., VADAKARA POLICE STATION,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

3. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :26/02/2007

 O R D E R


                             R. BASANT, J.

              -------------------------------------------------

                       W.P.(C) NO. 4943 2007-L

              -------------------------------------------------

           Dated this the 26th day of February, 2007


                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order passed under

Sec.451 of the Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate refusing to

return the vehicle belonging to him and seized by the police in

connection with an offence punishable under the provisions of

the Kerala Abkari Act.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor, after taking

instructions, submits that proceedings under Sec.67B of the

Abkari Act were initiated against the petitioner and by order

dated 27/9/06 passed by the Assistant Excise Commissioner,

Kozhikode, the vehicle has been ordered to be confiscated.

Against that, the petitioner, through his counsel, has preferred

an appeal and the Additional Excise Commissioner,

Trivandrum, by order dated 23/2/07 has already disposed of

that appeal dismissing the same. In these circumstances,

there is no merit or grace in the prayer made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition that the vehicle

may be released to the petitioner. The petitioner is

W.P.(C) NO. 4943 2007-L -: 2 :-

contumaciously guilty of suppressing the order of confiscation

under Sec.67B of the Abkari Act and the further proceedings

taken in pursuance of that order, points out the learned Public

Prosecutor.

3. I am satisfied that an order of confiscation having

already been passed, the petitioner cannot be heard to complain

about the dismissal of the petition filed by him under Sec.451 of

the Cr.P.C.

4. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. I may

hasten to observe that the petitioner’s right to challenge the

order passed under Sec.67B of the Abkari Act and the further

orders thereon shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this

writ petition.

Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge