ANTONY KAKKANNAT Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A vehicle owned by the 6th respondent bearing Regn.No.KRC 7457 was involved in a forest offence committed in 1990. When the confiscation proceedings were pending, petitioner offered himself as a surety for releasing the vehicle. Thereafter adjudication was completed and the vehicle was finally ordered to be confiscated.

(2.) THE 6th respondent challenged the confiscation order by filing CMA.No.27/1990 before the District Court, Thalassery. The CMA was allowed and the confiscation order was set aside. Against that order, the State filed Original Petition before this court, in which the District Court's order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal. Accordingly, the District Court reconsidered the appeal and passed orders confirming the order confiscating the vehicle. Against the order of the District Court, the 6th respondent filed CRP.No.1706/96 which was dismissed for default on 29.3.2004. Subsequently, CRP was restored by order dated 7.11.2007. In the CRP, the 6th respondent was granted a stay of recovery of the value of the vehicle which was sought to be recovered from him. Finally, the CRP was dismissed by Ext.P5 order dated 15.10.2009.

(3.) IN my view, this contention is untenable. Liability to remit the value of the vehicle arose on account of the confiscation order passed by the Authorised Officer. Payment of the value was not made, taking advantage of the judicial proceedings and the interim orders obtained by the 6th respondent. These proceedings culminated in Ext.P5, the order passed on 15.10.2009 dismissing the CRP. The effect of dismissal of the CRP is that the liability which arose on account of the confiscation order is restored. Consequently, the liability for payment of interest is also restored from the date of confiscation of the vehicle. If that be so, the argument of the petitioner that he has liability to pay interest only with effect from 15.10.2009 when the CRP was dismissed cannot be accepted.