High Court Kerala High Court

Binu vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 19 June, 2009

Kerala High Court
Binu vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 19 June, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1898 of 2009()


1. BINU,S/O.VIJAYAN,BINDUBHAVANAM VEEDU,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SAJU.S.A

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :19/06/2009

 O R D E R
                             THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
                            --------------------------------------
                              Crl.R.P.No.1898 of 2009
                            --------------------------------------
                      Dated this the 19th day of June, 2009.

                                         ORDER

This revision is in challenge of order dated 8.5.2009 on C.M.P.No.3538 of

2009 of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Kottarakkara. Case is that

the vehicle allegedly belonging to the petitioner was seized by the Excise

Officials in connection with Crime No.41 of 2009 of Ezhukone Excise Range on

the allegation that it was used for transportation of twenty litres of Indian made

foreign liquor. Matter was reported to the learned magistrate and the vehicle was

produced before the Assistant Excise Commissioner, the authorised officer

empowered to order confiscation of the vehicle. Petitioner moved

C.M.P.No.3538 of 2009 before learned magistrate seeking interim custody of

the vehicle. That petition was dismissed by the impugned order as the vehicle

has been produced before the authorised officer.

2. I heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor who took

notice for respondent. The Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Jabbar (2009

(2) KLT 709) has held, in respect of seizure of vehicle allegedly involved in

abkari offences that the High Court should not interfere when statutory remedy is

Crl.R.P.No.1898/2009

2

available. Going by the decision of the Apex Court petitioner has to approach

the authorised officer seeking appropriate relief. Learned magistrate has

correctly disallowed the prayer. There is no reason to interfere in revision.

Revision petition fails. It is dismissed.

THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.

cks