Santhosh vs The Excise Inspector on 8 February, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 398 of 2008()


1. SANTHOSH,S/O.THANKAPPAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.R.SUNIL

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :08/02/2008

 O R D E R
                          V.RAMKUMAR,J.
                   =========================
                     CRL.M.C.NO.398 OF 2008
                   =========================
                Dated this the 8th day of February 2008

                                ORDER

The petitioner, who claims to be the registered owner of a

Tata 407 Mini Lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-23/9974, moved the

JFCM I, Attingal by filing CMP 32/2008 for interim custody of the

vehicle. The vehicle was seized by the Excise Inspector,

Chirayinkeezhu in connection with CR No.56/2007 registered for

offences punishable under Sections 58 and 65 of the Abkari Act.

The learned Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground

that since the vehicle was liable to confiscation and was produced

before the Assistant Excise Commissioner on 28.11.2007, the

Magistrate cannot entertain the petition.

2. Actually, the offence which is prima facie made out

against the accused in the case is only one punishable under

Section 56(a) of the Abkari Act for the failure to produce the

permit for transporting toddy. The permit entitling the accused to

transport toddy was subsequently produced also. There is no

case for the prosecution that the toddy transported in the lorry

CRL.M.C.223/2008 2

was illicit, contraband liquor attracting the offences punishable

under Sections 58 to 65 of the Abkari act. Hence it cannot be said

that an offence has been committed in respect of or by means of

the mini lorry, so as to attract Section 65 of the Act to warrant

initiation of the confiscation proceedings. If so, the Magistrate

should have entertained the application for interim custody.

Accordingly, Annexure-A5 order dated 5.1.2008 in CMP 32/2008

passed by the JFCM I, Attingal is set aside. The said application

will stand allowed on appropriate conditions including the

execution of a bond to be ordered by the Magistrate.

Crl.M.C. is allowed as above.

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

css/