Judgment : This criminal revision case is against an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Manapprai, confiscating a tempo which according to the prosecution was involved in an offence punishable under Sec.4(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. 2. It appears three accused were charge-sheeted in the alleged offences. The second accused was the driver of the tempo. First accused was found loading gunny bags containing Jaggery, Navasaram, and Kadukkai to be transported to Rajalipatti for manufacture of illicit arrack there. Third accused was charge-sheeted on the ground that he was the owner of the tempo and it was at his instance the said materials were being loaded in the tempo to be transported. 3. Accused 1 and 2 were arrested on 18. 1993 when they were engaged in the said loading and they were produced before the Magistrate. According to the prosecution the third accused surrendered before court on 20.8.1993 and all the three accused were remanded for three days. But on the same day itself they filed a petition, for advancement of the hearing date and hence the Magistrate took up the hearing of the case on that day itself i.e., 20.8.1993. All the three accused pleaded guilty and on that plea and all the three of them were convicted and sentenced to pay Rs.800 each as fine. 4. Immediately on same day third accused filed an application for return of the vehicle and upon that application an order was passed on 28. 1993 confiscating the vehicle. It is against this order the present criminal revision case has been filed by the third accused. 5. Now, even if the vehicle was involved in an offence under the Prohibition Act it is not mandatory that that vehicle is to be confiscated. A reading of Sec. 14(2) will show that such vehicle is liable to be confiscated, which means that the Court can confiscate the vehicle. But there is no mandate to the Court that it shall confiscate the vehicle. Confiscation! of a vehicle depends upon the facts and merits of each case. In this connection, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner cited decisions of this Court viz., Balasubramanian, In re., 1966 L.W. (Crl.) 76, Maruthamuthu, In re, 1966 L.W. (Crl.) 185, T.A. Haja, In re., 1969 L.W. (Crl.) 60, which all supports the above view of mine. 6. of a vehicle depends upon the facts and merits of each case. In this connection, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner cited decisions of this Court viz., Balasubramanian, In re., 1966 L.W. (Crl.) 76, Maruthamuthu, In re, 1966 L.W. (Crl.) 185, T.A. Haja, In re., 1969 L.W. (Crl.) 60, which all supports the above view of mine. 6. Now, it is pleaded by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner-third accused that on 20.8.1993 third accused being the owner of the vehicle he went to court to get return of the vehicle but in the court it was recorded that he surrendered, and he was remanded. Whatever may be the true facts, the records show, and it is also not disputed, that the three accused were remanded but they filed a memo for advancement of the hearing date, and that petition, was allowed and the hearing was taken upon the same day, and all the three accused pleaded guilty and upon that they were convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 800. each, and on the same day third accused has filed an application for return of the vehicle. 7. From these and the other records in the case especially the evidence against the third accused which is only the confession of the second accused, it appears to me that as far as the third accused is concerned he was interested in getting back the vehicle and perhaps he thought that in case he admits the alleged offence he may be fined and he may get back the vehicle, and that is the reason he along with the other accused pleaded guilty, and otherwise he would have contested the case. It may be here relevant to note that as against the order of conviction Criminal Revision Case No. 709 of 1993 has been filed. Considering these facts and circumstances it appears to me that it will not be just and proper to confiscate the vehicle. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is allowed and the order of confiscation in Crl.M.P.No. 1764 of 1993 is set aside and the vehicle is ordered to be returned to the revision petitioner-third accused.