IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 270 of 2011()
1. M.N.SHAJAHAN, AGED 52 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. JOBIL EASOW,AGED 27 YEARS,
Vs
1. THE EXCISE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
3. THE STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.SETHUNATH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :03/02/2011
O R D E R
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