SAJEEVAN T vs STATE OF KERALA

W.P (C) No.21769 of 2026 CNR : KLHC010468312026

1 2026:KER:85339
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
TH
FRIDAY, THE 6 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2026 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 21769 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
SAJEEVAN T
AGED 47 YEARS
EDAN CHANDU, THENIYADAN VEETTIL, THARAPPIKANDATHIL,
KOLAYAD AMSOM, PERUVA DESOM, PERUVA P.O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670650
BY ADV SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
OFFICE OF EXCISE COMMISSIONER, NARIDAVANAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE ADDITIONAL EXCISE COMMISSIONER (ENFORCEMENT)
NARIDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURARN, PIN - 695001
4 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE, KANNUR, PIN - 670002

W.P (C) No.21769 of 2026 CNR : KLHC010468312026

2 2026:KER:85339
BY ADV.
SMT.NEELANJANA NAIR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.11.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

W.P (C) No.21769 of 2026 CNR : KLHC010468312026

3 2026:KER:85339
“ C.R. ”
JUDGMENT
Under challenge in this Writ Petition is Ext.P4 Order passed by
the learned Magistrate refusing to release an amount of
Rs.1,08,000/-, deposited by the petitioner before the trial
Court at the time of releasing a vehicle, which has been
confiscated in connection with Crime No.26/2022 of Peravoor
Excise Range. The petitioner sought for release of the amount
on the strength of Ext.P1 judgment of acquittal. However, the
relief was refused vide Ext.P4, holding that acquittal was only
for technical reasons relating to the proof of sample
collected, and also, for procedural shortcomings.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court finds that Ext.P4
Order cannot be sustained. Before adjudging the merits of
Ext.P4 Order, this Court will first take stock of the legal
position as regards confiscation, in terms of the Abkari Act,

W.P (C) No.21769 of 2026 CNR : KLHC010468312026

4 2026:KER:85339
1 of 1077. Section 67B of the Abkari Act deals with the
confiscation by Abkari Officers. It starts with a non obstante
clause, enabling the officer to seize and detain any property,
which carries any liquor or intoxicating drug material; and
also, an animal, cart, vessel, or other conveyance used for
carrying such liquor or intoxicating material and to produce
the same before the authorized officer. Section 67B(2) enjoins

the authorised officer to order confiscation of the property,
only if he is satisfied that an offence under the Act has been
committed in respect of or by means of the property sought to
be confiscated. As per Section 67H, a property confiscated will
vest with the Government, once the confiscation Order has
become final.
3. Relying on the words employed in Section 67B(2), it was
argued by the learned Prosecutor that confiscation can be
effected, whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the
commission of the offence, and therefore, the outcome of such
prosecution, that is to say an acquittal, cannot impact a

W.P (C) No.21769 of 2026 CNR : KLHC010468312026

5 2026:KER:85339
validly effected confiscation. In other words, both are
parallel proceedings, wherein the criminal proceedings cannot
impact the confiscation proceedings, is the argument advanced.
Learned Prosecutor would submit that the judgments relied by
the petitioner have been correctly distinguished by the learned
Magistrate, and therefore, the impugned Ext.P4 Order warrants
no interference.
4 . Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that Ext.P4 Order is squarely in the teeth of two
judgments, the first by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul
Vahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2022) 13 SCC 310]; and the
second, by this Court in Biju Ettammal v. State of Kerala [2026
(1) KHC 52]. The former was in the context of the provisions of
the Madhya Pradesh Cow Slaughter Prohibition Act, 2004;

whereas, the latter was rendered interpreting the provisions of
the Abkari Act itself. Finally, learned counsel would point out
that Ext.P1 judgment of acquittal found in the concluding
paragraph that the prosecution failed to establish the evidence

W.P (C) No.21769 of 2026 CNR : KLHC010468312026

6 2026:KER:85339
connecting the accused with the contraband seized, in which
case, a satisfaction made mention of in Section 67B(2) cannot
be arrived at. On such premise, petitioner seeks Ext.P4 to be
set aside, followed by release of the amount to the petitioner.
5 . Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties, this Court finds substantial force in the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
True, if we look at the plain language of the Sections referred
above, it would appear that such proceedings is independent in
nature, irrespective of and uninfluenced by the criminal
proceeding in respect of the main offence. However, such an
interpretation canvassed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on
the basis of the Madhya Pradesh Cow Slaughter Prohibition Act,
2004 has been rejected by the Supreme Court as violative of
Articles 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution. In paragraph
no.9, the precise contention taken by the State of Madhya
Pradesh has been recorded to the effect that confiscation
proceedings and criminal prosecution are parallelly

W.P (C) No.21769 of 2026 CNR : KLHC010468312026

7 2026:KER:85339
maintainable. After referring to the respective contentions and
precedents, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus in paragraph
no.18 of Abdul Vahab (supra):
“18. By reason of an order of confiscation, a
person is deprived of the enjoyment of his
property. Article 300A of the Constitution provides
that no person shall be deprived of his property
save by authority of law. Therefore, to deprive any
person of their property, it is necessary for the
State, inter-alia, to establish that the property
was illegally obtained or is part of the proceeds
of crime or the deprivation is warranted for public
purpose or public interest.”
6 . The findings in paragraph no.21 are also relevant and
extracted here below:
“21. In the present case, the Appellant's truck was
confiscated on account of the criminal proceedings
alone and therefore, under the applicable law, the
vehicle cannot be withheld and then confiscated by
the State, when the original proceedings have
culminated into acquittal. It is also not the
projected case that there is a likelihood that the
appellant's truck will be used for committing
similar offence.”
7 . In paragraph no.22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that,
in a case where the offenders/accused are acquitted in criminal
prosecution, the judgment should be factored while deciding the

W.P (C) No.21769 of 2026 CNR : KLHC010468312026

8 2026:KER:85339
confiscation proceeding. The Supreme Court found in paragraph
no.22 that the evidence was missing to connect the accused with
the charges, in which circumstance, the confiscation of the
appellant's truck, when he is acquitted in the criminal
prosecution, amounts to arbitrary deprivation of his property,
violating Article 300A of the Constitution. Accordingly, the
confiscation Order was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8 . Taking stock of the judgment in Abdul Vahab (supra), a
learned Single Judge of this Court in Biju Ettammal (supra),
found that the dictum in Abdul Vahab (supra) can be applied to
the confiscation under Section 67B of the Abkari Act, as well,
followed by a further finding that the confiscation of the
vehicle under Section 67B cannot be sustained, when the
petitioner is acquitted in the original criminal prosecution.
The so called distinction, which has been found by the learned
Magistrate in Ext.P4 is unreal, so as to take the facts away
from the teeth of Biju Ettammal (supra) and Abdul Vahab
(supra). This Court fully endorses the submission made by the

W.P (C) No.21769 of 2026 CNR : KLHC010468312026

9 2026:KER:85339
learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P1 judgment of
acquittal recorded that the prosecution could not establish the
evidence connecting the accused with the contraband seized. The
necessary corollary of that finding is that the connection
between the petitioner and the contraband - which is alleged to
have been carried in the conveyance - also stands not
established. If that be so, the fundamental requirement in
terms of Section 67B(2), as regards the satisfaction that an
offence under the Abkari Act has been committed in respect of
or by means of that property sought to be confiscated, is not
met. Unless the link between the petitioner/accused and the
contraband is established, a satisfaction to the effect that
the vehicle sought to be confiscated has been used, or for that
matter, an offence has been committed in respect of the
vehicle, cannot be arrived at.
9 . The upshot of the above discussion is that Ext.P1 judgment
cannot be sustained and the same will stand set aside. There
will be a consequential direction to the learned Magistrate to

W.P (C) No.21769 of 2026 CNR : KLHC010468312026

10 2026:KER:85339
release a sum of Rs.1,08,000/- (Rupees one lakh eight thousand
only) - deposited by the petitioner as a pre-condition for
releasing the vehicle in question - to the petitioner
forthwith, by issuing necessary orders. In case the amount has
not been transferred from the office of the Magistrate Court
concerned, the officer-in-charge will stand directed to release
the amount to the petitioner, as directed above. If the amount
has already been transferred to the account of the Excise
Department, the officer-in-charge of the Excise Department will
comply with the above direction.
This Writ Petition will stand allowed, as indicated above.
Sd/-

C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE
ww

W.P (C) No.21769 of 2026 CNR : KLHC010468312026

11 2026:KER:85339
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 21769 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
04.10.2025 IN S.C. NO.49/2023 OF THE COURT
OF SESSIONS, THALASSERY
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER INITIATED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT EDKNR/306/2022-C3 DATED
28.09.2022
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.01.2023
IN 68/APL/2022 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED
AS ORDER DATED 12.03.2026 IN C.M.P.
NO.1/2026 IN C.P. NO.80/2022 IN CRIME
NGO.26/2022 OF PERAVOOR EXCISE RANGE