Acquitted Abkari Accused To Get ₹1.08 Lakh Vehicle-Release Deposit Back After Kerala HC Finds Contraband Link Unproved

The petitioner had deposited Rs.1,08,000 as a condition for the release of a vehicle seized in connection with Crime No. 26/2022 of Peravoor Excise Range. After his acquittal, he sought return of the deposit. The Magistrate refused, reasoning that the acquittal rested on technical and procedural deficiencies. The petitioner challenged that refusal under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The acquittal judgment recorded that the prosecution had failed to establish evidence connecting the accused with the seized contraband.

Section 67B(2) of the Abkari Act authorises confiscation only where the authorised officer is satisfied that an offence under the Act was committed in respect of, or by means of, the property; under Section 67H, confiscated property vests in the Government once the confiscation order becomes final.

Article 300A of the Constitution protects against deprivation of property except by authority of law.

In Abdul Vahab v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 13 SCC 310, the Supreme Court held that confiscation must have a lawful basis and that an acquittal and the evidence underlying it must be considered when deciding confiscation; confiscation following acquittal may amount to arbitrary deprivation of property where the evidence does not connect the accused to the offence.

This Court applied Biju Ettammal v. State of Kerala, 2026 (1) KHC 52, which applied Abdul Vahab to confiscation under Section 67B of the Abkari Act.

Although the State argued that confiscation proceedings could proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, the Court held that the statutory requirement of satisfaction under Section 67B(2) remained essential.

The acquittal judgment found that the prosecution had not established the accused’s connection with the contraband. Consequently, the necessary link between the petitioner, the contraband and the vehicle was not established, so the required satisfaction that an offence had been committed in respect of or by means of the vehicle could not be reached.

The Magistrate’s distinction of the cited authorities was therefore unsustainable.

It directed the Magistrate to release Rs.1,08,000 to the petitioner forthwith, requiring the officer-in-charge of the Magistrate’s Court or, if the amount had been transferred, the Excise Department to comply.