RENNY P.DAMIYAN Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the registered owner of a Tata 407 vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL -7/AM -7899. The said vehicle was seized in connection with Crime No.570/2009, of the Nedumbassery Police Station, registered for offences under Sections 8(1) and (2) and 55 (a) and (i) of the Abkari Act. The case was registered on the allegation that on 17.03.2009 at about 11.30 a.m., the 1st respondent and party had conducted a search in the toddy shop which was licensed in the name of the 1st accused and seized 4000 litres of diluted spirit and 6650 litres of toddy mixed with spirit from the toddy shop building. The petitioner's vehicle, which was leased to the 1st accused, was seized for the sole reason that it was found parked in the toddy shop premises. The criminal proceedings that were initiated subsequently resulted in deletion of the registered owners of the vehicles from the list of persons charge sheeted. Proceedings were, however, initiated under the Abkari Act for confiscation of the vehicles that were seized and this included the vehicle of the petitioner as well.

(2.) EXT .P4 show cause notice dated 03.04.2009 was issued to the petitioner proposing confiscation of the vehicle seized by the respondents. In response to Ext.P4 notice the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 reply pointing out that the ingredients of Section 65, which provided for the circumstances under which a vehicle could be confiscated, was not attracted in the instant case and, therefore, the proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle were wholly illegal. The contentions of the petitioner did not find favour with the 2nd respondent who passed Ext.P6 order dated 29.09.09 directing confiscation of the vehicle by invoking Section 67B (2) of the Abkari Act. Aggrieved by Ext.P6 order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent who vide Ext.P9 order confirmed Ext.P6 order. It is aggrieved by Ext.P9 order that the petitioner preferred this writ petition impugning the said order.

(3.) I have heard Sri.M.G.Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri.A.J.Jose Aedaiodi, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.