Holding

The High Court should not have interfered with the statutory remedies provided under the Abkari Act, and the vehicle's release must be conditioned on the bank guarantee as directed by the Assistant Excise Commissioner.

Summary

The vehicle of C.A. Jabbar was seized under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act and the Assistant Excise Commissioner ordered the respondent to furnish a bank guarantee equal to the vehicle's value for its release. The High Court, ignoring this direction, ordered the vehicle's release upon execution of a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties. The State appealed, arguing that the High Court should not have interfered when specific statutory remedies—appeal under Section 67E and revision under Section 67F of the Act—were available but not invoked. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in bypassing the statutory scheme and that its order lacked justification. Consequently, the Court directed that the respondent must also provide a bank guarantee of Rs. 25,000 in addition to the bond, failing which the vehicle may be repossessed. The appeal was disposed of with these directions.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court could interfere with the release of a seized vehicle when the Abkari Act provides specific statutory remedies for appeal and revision.
Whether the direction to release the vehicle on execution of a bond alone, without the bank guarantee ordered by the Assistant Excise Commissioner, is legally justified.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 457
Kerala Abkari Acts. 55(a), s. 678, s. 67E, s. 67F

Subjects

Abkari Actconfiscationvehicle seizurestatutory remedyappealrevisionbank guaranteeHigh Court interference

Judgment

[2009] 7 S.C.R. 300
-
·k

A STATE OF KERALA ....
V.
C.A. JABBAR
Criminal Appeal No. 885 of 2009
MAY 1, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
"""'(
Abkari Act, Kera/a 1077 - ss. 678, E and F- Confiscation
of vehicle - Direction for release of vehicle on furnishing of
c bank guarantee equal to value of vehicle by Assistant Excise
Commissioner - Challenge to ....: High Court directing release
of vehicle on executing a bond - On appeal, held: High Court
should not have interfered with the matter when statutory
remedies are provided and that too without giving any reason
~-
D - However, vehicle has been released - Respondent to furnish
.....
bank guarantee in addition to execution of bond.
Respondent's vehicle was seized under section
55(a) of the Abkari Act. :-le prayed for release of vehicle
but the same was rejected since the vehicle had been
E entrusted to the Assistant Excise Commissioner for
confiscation. Assistant Excise Commissioner directed to
respondent to furnish bank guarantee equal to the value
of the vehicle as fixed. High Court held that the Assistant
Excise Commissioner was to release the vehicle to the
F respondent after ascertaining the ownership on executing
a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the
like sum. Hence the present appeal.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
G HELD: Section 67E of the Abkari Act deals with the
appeal in respect of an order passed under section 678 lir,
of the Act while section 67F refers to the power of revision
in respect of an order under section 678 and 67E and can

H 300
STATE OF KERALA V. C.A. JABBAR 301.

be exercised on his own motion by the Commissioner. A
Admittedly, the statutory remedies have not been availed.
The High Court ought not to have interfered in a matter
when statutory remedies are provided. Pursuant to the
High Court's order the vehicle has been released.
However, the direction for release or executing a bond B

- ,... seems to be without any justification when Assistant
Excise Commissioner had directed furnishing of the bank
guarantee equal to the value of the vehicle. The High Court
had not indicated any reason as to why that part of the
order was interfered with. Hence, it is directed that in c
addition to the personal bond executed for securing
release of the vehicle, the respondent shall furnish bank
·guarantee for the sum of Rs.25,000/- to the satisfaction of
the Assistant Excise Commissioner concerned. On failure
to do so, the concerned official shall be free to cancel the
0
bond and to take possession of the vehicle in question.
[Paras 5, 6 and 7] [303-F-H; 304-A-C]
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 885 of 2009
From the Judgement and Order dated 26.10.2006 of the E
Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl. M.C. No. 3323
of 2006
P.V. Dinesh, for the Appellant.
K. Rajeev, for the Respondent. F

The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted. G
.rt 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court. Respondent
had filed an application for release of Maruti Omni Van of which
he claimed to be the owner. Learned Judicial First Class
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.

A Magistrate rejected the prayer for release in terms of Section
457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the
'Code'). The vehicle was seized in terms of Section 55(a) of
·the Abkari Act. The appellant took the stand that the vehicle was
stolen and the matter was reported to the police and on the
8 same day the vehicle was detected by the police. A case was
registered under Section 55(a) of the Act against four accused
persons. The application for release was rejected on the ground
that the vehicle has been entrusted to the Assistant Excise
Commissioner for the purpose of confiscation. The respondent
c approached the Assistant Excise Commissioner and he was
directed to furnish bank guarantee equal to the value of the
vehicle as fixed by a Mechanical Engineer before the High
Court. Appellant had questioned the order taking the stand that

0
he was unable to raise the amount required for the bank
guarantee and, therefore, the vehicle should be released without
any condition. The High Court held that in view of the factual
scenario the Assistant Excise Commissioner, ldukki was to
release the vehicle to the respondent after ascertaining the
-
ownership on executing a bond of Rs.50,000/-with two solvent
sureties for the like sum.
E
3. Questioning correctness of the order passed, learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that without availing the
statutory remedy the respondent should not have approached
the High Court and in any event the High court should not have
F interfered.
4. Section 67-8 of the Act reads as follows:
"678. Confiscation by Abkari Officers in certain cases.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in
G any other law for the time being in force, where any liquor,
intoxicating drug material, still, utensil, implement or
apparatus or any receptacle, package or recovering in
which such liquor, intoxicating drug, material, still, utensil,
implement or apparatus is found or any animal, cart,
H vessel, or other conveyance used in carrying the same is
....
•
.....' STATE OF KERALAV C.A. JABBAR 303.
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
... seized and detained under the provfsions of this Act; the A
officer seizing and detaining such property shall, without
any unreasonable, produce the same before an officer
authorized by the Government in this behalf by notification
in the Gazette, not being below the rank of an Assistant
Excise Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as the B
authorized officer.)·

,. . (2) Where an authorized officer seizes and detains any
property specified in sub-section (1) or where any such
property is produced before an authorized officer under
- - ..,,, that sub-section and he is satisfied that an offence under c
this Act has been committed in respect of or by means of
-,,,i that property and that such property is liable to confiscation
under this Act, such authorized officer may, whether or not

-' ... ~
a prosecution is instituted for the commission of such
offence, order confiscation of such property and where D
such pr9perty consists of any receptacle or package, the
authorized officer may also order confiscation of all
contents thereof.
(3) When making an order of confiscation under sub-
section (2), the authorized officer may also order that such E
of the properties to which the order of confiscation relates,
which in his opinion cannot be preserved or are not fit.for ·
human consumption, be destroyed."

5. Section 67E of the Act deals with the appeal in respect F
of an order passed under Section 678 of the Act while Section
67F refers to the power of revision in respect of an.order under
Section 678 and 67E and can be exercised on his own motion
by the Commissioner. Admittedly, the statutory remedies have
'
not been availed. The High Court ought not to have interfered in
G
(.. a matter when statutory remedies are provided. In the instant
.'ff'
case it is submitted by the respondent that pursuant to the High
1
Court's order dated 26 h October, 2006 the vehicle has been
released.

6. However, the direction for release or executing a bond H
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.

A seems to be without any justification when Assistant Excise
Commissioner had directed furnishing of the bank guarantee
equal to the value of the vehicle. The High Court had not indicated
any reason as to why that part of the order was interfered with.
7. We dispose of the appeal with the direction that in
B addition to the personal bond executed for securing release of
the vehicle, the respondent shall within a period of six weeks
from today furnish bank guarantee for the sum of Rs.25,000/- to
the satisfaction of the Assistant Excise Commissioner
concerned. If the bank guarantee is not furnished, the concerned
C official shall be free to cancel the bond and to take possession
of the vehicle in question.
8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

N.J. Appeal disposed of.

, ..

y