Judgment :- The petitioner is the registered owner of the Ambassador Mark II car bearing registration No. K.R.T. 81, which was purchased in 1974 under hire purchase agreement with M/s. Commercial Credit Corporation (P) Ltd., Madras. It has been registered as a Taxi Cab from 1974. 2. According to the petitioner, he appointed a new Driver, one Ramachandran Nair on 27-1-1975. It is alleged by him that he came to understand that on 3-2-1975 at about 3 p.m. the vehicle was hired by two persons - Palayan and Thankaraj. They are alleged to have went to Punnavoor near Neyyattinkara. At 5 p.m. on that day the petitioner came to know that the vehicle was seized by the Excise Circle Inspector, the first respondent in this Original Petition. The Driver of the vehicle as well as the persons concerned were arrested for the illegal transportation of the illicit arrack. After the seizure the car was kept in the Excise Range Neyyattinkara. 3. The petitioner at the time was the Central Depot Manager of the Kerala State Handloom, Central Depot, Quilon. He is said to have proceeded to Neyyattinkara on getting information of the seizure and met the first respondent the next day and requested him to release the vehicle as he is the owner of the vehicle and as he had nothing to do with the alleged transportation of the illicit arrack. The first respondent is said to have refused to release the vehicle. The petitioner preferred an application before the Board of Revenue, the second respondent in this Original Petition on 26-2-1975, requesting for the release of the vehicle. He also filed a similar petition before the Government. A petition was filed by the Commercial Credit Corporation Private Ltd., also as the vehicle was purchased in hire purchase agreement. 4. On 26-4-197, a notice was issued to the petitioner by the Board of Revenue to show cause why the vehicle should not be confiscated. Ext. P-2 is the copy of the notice. The petitioner is alleged to have given a detailed explanation to the same, wherein, he had stated that he is innocent in the matter and he has nothing to do with the alleged transportation of the illicit arrack Subsequently, it would appear that the Excise Commissioner, Board of Revenue, passed an order dated 22-5-1975, marked in these proceedings as Ext. The petitioner is alleged to have given a detailed explanation to the same, wherein, he had stated that he is innocent in the matter and he has nothing to do with the alleged transportation of the illicit arrack Subsequently, it would appear that the Excise Commissioner, Board of Revenue, passed an order dated 22-5-1975, marked in these proceedings as Ext. R-1, filed along with the counter affidavit of the first respondent, wherein, the Excise Commissioner ordered under Sections 65 and 67 of the Abkari Act to confiscate with immediate effect the Ambassador Car involved. 5. It might be noted that when the Original Petition was filed the petitioner was not served with the order Ext. R-1. His prayer in the Original Petition was, as originally filed, for the issue of a writ declaring the seizure of the petitioner's vehicle and the confiscation therein if any already ordered, is illegal and for the issue of a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle as he is the registered owner. There is also a prayer to declare that the provisions contained in Sec. 67 of the Abkari Act are ultra vires and unconstitutional to the extent to which the said provisions seek to confer arbitrary powers of confiscation on the Abkari Officers. After the counter affidavit was filed the prayer (a) in the Original Petition was amended and the petitioner now sought a writ of certiorari for quashing Ext. R-1. 6. According to the petitioner, the provisions contained in the Abkari Act do not empower any officer to confiscate a vehicle in respect of which a proper claim has been preferred by its registered owner. The provisions contained in Section &6 of the Abkari Act regarding confiscation generally vest the power of confiscation in the Magistrate. The power of confiscation is given to the Commissioner only when that vehicle is "Res-Nullus" and is unclaimed under S. 66 of the Abkari Act When an offence under the Abkari Act has been committed but the offender is not known or cannot be found the Commissioner has power to confiscate the vehicle. It is said that in this case, the persons committed the offence have been arrested on the spot. The petitioner is known to be the owner of the vehicle. 7. It is said that in this case, the persons committed the offence have been arrested on the spot. The petitioner is known to be the owner of the vehicle. 7. The petitioner also contends that his vehicle is not liable to be confiscated unless it is proved that an offence under Abkari Act has been committed with reference to the vehicle with the knowledge of the petitioner. In the present case it is contended that it has not been established that any offence has been committed with reference to the petitioner's vehicle, with the knowledge of the petitioner. 8. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, after dealing with the facts leading to seizure, it Is stated that the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Trivandrum, sent a report to the Commissioner of Excise about the seizure and the further proceedings taken by him in the case. The three accused who had been arrested appeared before the Excise Inspector and pleaded guilty to the charge and made written requests to compound the case departmentally. Accordingly, the case was compounded after imposing a fine of Rs. 250/- each on the three accused. It is contended that the car was used for the transport of illicit arrack and therefore liable to be confiscated under Sections 65 and 67 of the Abkari Act. Along with the Report of the Assistant Excise Commissioner, it is said that the entire file of the case was forwarded to him and the Commissioner then issued notice to the petitioner and the Commercial Credit Corporation. After hearing all the parties concerned the Commissioner passed the impugned order confiscating the car under Section 65 read with Section 67 of the Kerala Abkari Act. 9. Mr. Nagendran appearing for the petitioner in his argument before the court did not challenge the validity of any of the provisions of the Abkari Act. His only contention is that the Excise Commissioner has no jurisdiction to issue the confiscation order under Section 67 in the matter. Therefore, I need only examine whether Section 67 enables the Excise Commissioner to issue the order. It will be necessary in the circumstances to consider the scope and ambit of the relevant provisions dealing with confiscation under the Abkari Act. The relevant provisions are Sections 65, 66 and 67, which, I may quote below : "65. Therefore, I need only examine whether Section 67 enables the Excise Commissioner to issue the order. It will be necessary in the circumstances to consider the scope and ambit of the relevant provisions dealing with confiscation under the Abkari Act. The relevant provisions are Sections 65, 66 and 67, which, I may quote below : "65. What things liable to confiscation : In any case in which an offence has been committed under this Act, the liquor, drug, materials, still, utensil, implement or apparatus in respect (or by means) of which an offence has been committed shall be liable to confiscation - Any liquor or intoxicating drug lawfully imported, exported, transported, manufactured, had in possession or sold or toddy lawfully drawn or tapped along with, or in addition to any liquor, intoxicating drug or toddy, liable to confiscation under this section, and The receptacles, packages and coverings in which any such liquor, intoxicating drug, materials, still, utensil, implement or apparatus as aforesaid is or are found, and the other contents, if any, of the receptacles or packages in which the same is or are found, and the animals, carts, vessels or other conveyances used in carrying the same, shall likewise be liable to confiscation. 66. Confiscation how ordered :- When the offender is convicted or when the person charged with an offence under this Act is acquitted, but the Magistrate decides that anything is liable to confiscation, such confiscation may be ordered by the Magistrate. Whenever confiscation is authorised by this. Act, the Magistrate ordering it may give the owner of the thing liable to be confiscated an option to pay, in lieu, of confiscation, such fine as the officer thinks fit. Whenever confiscation is authorised by this. Act, the Magistrate ordering it may give the owner of the thing liable to be confiscated an option to pay, in lieu, of confiscation, such fine as the officer thinks fit. When an offence under this Act has been committed, but the offender is not known or cannot be found, or when anything liable to confiscation under this Act and not in the possession of any person cannot be satisfactorily accounted for, the case shall be inquired into and determined by the (Commissioner), or by any other officer authorised by the (Government) in that behalf, who may order such confiscation; Provided that no, such order shall be made until the expiration of one month from the date of seizing the things intended to be confiscated or without hearing the persons, if any, claiming any right thereto, and evidence, if any, which they produce in support of their claims : Provided further that if the thing in question is liable to speedy and natural decay, or if the Commissioner or any other officer authorised by the Government in that behalf is of opinion that the sale would be for the benefit of its owner, he may at any time direct it to be sold, and the provisions of this section shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of such sale. 67. Power to compound offences :- Any Abkari Officer specially empowered in that behalf may accept from any person whose license or permit is liable to be cancelled or suspended under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 26 or who is reasonably suspended of having committed an offence under Sections 55, 56, 57, 58 or 63, a sum of money not exceeding two thousand rupees in lieu of such concealment or suspension or by way of compensation for the offence which may have been committed, as the case may be; and, in all cases whatsoever in which any property has been seized as liable to confiscation under this Act such property may, at the option of such officer, be confiscated or released on payment of the value thereof as estimated by such officer. On the payment of such sum of money or such value, or both, as the case may be, to such officer the accused person, if in custody, shall be discharged, the properties seized shall be confiscated or released as the case may be and no further proceedings shall be taken against such person or against such property if it is released". Section 65 deals with things which are liable to confiscation. How confiscation can be ordered is dealt with in Sec. 66. There, the Excise Commissioner's power of confiscation is confined to cases where an offence under the Act has been committed but the offender is not known or cannot be found, or when anything liable to confiscation under the Act and not in the possession of any person cannot be satisfactorily accounted for. In such instances, the Commissioner of Excise or any other officer authorised by the Government in that behalf after due enquiry can order confiscation. Section 67 deals with power to compound offences. A reading of the section would indicate that when offence is compounded, in all case whatsoever in which any property has been seized as liable to confiscation under this Act, such property may, at the option of such officer, be confiscated or released on payment of the value thereof as estimated by such officer. Reading the section in a harmonious manner there cannot be any doubt that the power of confiscation contemplated in Section 67 will arise only when the offence is compounded; but then, when compounding offences committed by A, the Commissioner cannot confiscate the property which does not belong to A, though it may be seized consequent to the commission of offence. In the instant case, the vehicle concerned belongs to the petitioner and there has been no compounding of the offence as far as he is concerned. It was contended by Shri Dharmadan, that in all cases the Excise Officers have general power to confiscate any property which has been seized as liable to confiscation under the Act The power of confiscation under Section 67 arises only at the time of compounding offences with the persons concerned to whom the property may belong is clear from reading the section as a whole. The heading of the section itself says that the section deals with the power to compound offences. The heading of the section itself says that the section deals with the power to compound offences. No doubt, in the matter of the interpretation of the section, the head-note cannot control the language in the body of the section, any more than a marginal note can. See Income Tax Officer v. K. P. Varghese, 1973 Ker LT 1 at page 10 = (1973 Tax LR 735) and AIR 1970 SC 1582, Chandroji Rao v. Commr. of Income Tax M.P. But then, when there is any difficulty in understanding the true meaning of the section the court is not powerless to look into the heading of the section Though headings will not affect the construction of the provision, it is clear in the case of ambiguity, the court is certainly entitled to look at the heading. In Knight v. Lambrick Contractors Ltd., Parker L.J. (now Lord Parker C.J.) said, (1957) 1 Q.B. 562; 566 - "If there were any remaining doubts, I think one is entitled to look at the heading of the section which is 'Excavations' ....... In the case of ambiguity one is, I think, entitled to look at the heading and to hold that these regulations in this Part fall under the umbrella of what may be described as the operations of excavation". In Elliott v. Grey, (1960) 1 QB 367, 372, the same judge said - "I am influenced by the fact that this section appears in Part II of the Act (Road Traffic Act, 1930) under the heading of 'Provision against third-party risks arising out of the use of motor vehicles'." In Qualter, Hall & Co. Ltd. v. Board of Trade, (1961) 3 WLR 825, 832, Harman L.J. said : "Headings of this kind (the heading to paragraph 7(1) of Schedule VII to the Companies Act, 1948 - 'Exception for Banking or Finance Company providing Capital') are the equivalent of preambles to older statutes" and he held that they might therefore be looked at in interpreting the subsequent provisions : and in the same case Donovan L.J. said (Ibid. at p. 835): "But the cross heading is in the nature of a preamble and ought to be looked at in order to ascertain the true meaning of what follows it" See also pages 210 to 212 of Craies on Statute Law Seventh Edition. 10. I am therefore of the view that Ext. at p. 835): "But the cross heading is in the nature of a preamble and ought to be looked at in order to ascertain the true meaning of what follows it" See also pages 210 to 212 of Craies on Statute Law Seventh Edition. 10. I am therefore of the view that Ext. R-1 order is illegal. Therefore, I set aside Ext. R-1 and direct that the vehicles be released to the petitioner but only with the concurrence of the Commercial Credit Corporation (P) Ltd., Madras. Nothing said here will prevent the authorities from proceeding against the petitioner for offences which might have been committed under the Abkari Act and in dealing with the vehicle in such manner as prescribed by law, dealing with the offences. The Original Petition is disposed of as above; but there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.