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