ORDER : A. Hariprasad, J. These three petitions filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "Cr.P.C.") arise out of Crime No. 11 of 2008 of Excise Range Office, Ernakulam, which is pending in committal proceedings, CP No. 6 of 2010 in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ernakulam. Petitioners are accused 6 to 8 in the case. Offences alleged against them in Annexure-XII final report are under Sections 6, 10 and 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act (Act 1 of 1077) (for short, "Abkari Act"). Crl MC No. 1095 of 2010 is taken as the leading case for clarity and convenience. 8th accused is the petitioner in Crl MC No. 1095 of 2010. He is the Chairman of M/s. Jet Airways (India) Pvt. Ltd. (for short, "Company"). 7th accused, at the relevant time, was working as the General Manager of Warehouse and Distribution of the Company. 6th accused then was working as the Purchase Manager in the Company. Company is operating International flight services from Cochin too. For serving 'champagne' (a group of wine-mild alcoholic drink) to the passengers travelling in the International flights, Purchase Manager of the Company placed orders to M/s. Moet Hennessy India Pvt. Ltd. for purchasing 30 cases of champagne on specific conditions. After complying with all the formalities, 30 cases of champagne were imported. While transporting the goods from Panvel, Mumbai to Cochin on a valid bond to bond transfer permit issued by the Customs, it was intercepted by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the goods were handed over to the 1st respondent. 1st respondent in turn, registered the above said crime. Petitioners allege that both the authorities did not verify the valid documents produced at the time of seizure. Seizure, registering of crime and all subsequent proceedings, according to the petitioners, are vitiated by mala fides, absence of jurisdiction and ultra vires of their authority. 2. Annexure-IX, final report was filed by the Excise Circle Inspector, Ernakulam before the learned Magistrate. Initially there were only three accused. Subsequent to the filing of Annexure-IX final report, the Excise Inspector filed a report before the learned Magistrate seeking permission to conduct further investigation in the case. That is Annexure-X. Learned Magistrate as per Annexure-X(a) order, granted permission. Pursuant to that, further investigation was conducted and Annexure-XI, report was filed. Initially there were only three accused. Subsequent to the filing of Annexure-IX final report, the Excise Inspector filed a report before the learned Magistrate seeking permission to conduct further investigation in the case. That is Annexure-X. Learned Magistrate as per Annexure-X(a) order, granted permission. Pursuant to that, further investigation was conducted and Annexure-XI, report was filed. As per this report, the investigating agency added accused 4 to 8 in the crime and deleted Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act from the original report. Annexure-XII is the final report, which is sought to be quashed by the petitioners. 3. Charge that is now made against the petitioners is in the following manner: As instructed by the 4th accused (consignor), the 5th accused (Operation Executive, M/s. Green Freight Carriers) transported Foreign made foreign liquor from Panvel, Mumbai to Cochin by Mangala Express train through its agent, 2nd accused. Goods were cleared from the South Railway Station, Ernakulam by the 3rd accused (clearing agent) and arranged transport facility through 1st accused. All the above acts were done for the 6th accused (consignee - Purchase Manager of the Company), the 7th accused (General Manager of Warehouse and Distribution of the Company) and the 8th accused (Chairman of the Company). Thus, all the accused have committed offences punishable under Sections 6, 10 and 55(a) of the Abkari Act. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Legal questions that crop up for determination are the following: (i) Whether removal of foreign made foreign liquor from one bonded warehouse in Maharashtra to another bonded warehouse in Angamali, Kerala after complying with all formalities in Chapter IX of the Customs Act, 1962 can be termed as illegal import or transport punishable under the Abkari Act (Act 1 of 1077)? (ii) When goods are removed from one bonded warehouse to another one as authorised by the proper officer of the Customs Department, can the owner of the goods to be said to be in possession of the same? 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that 1st respondent has no authority or jurisdiction to register a crime as the petitioners have not committed any offence. According to him, foreign made foreign liquor (champagne) was not in the legal possession of the petitioners at the time of seizure. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that 1st respondent has no authority or jurisdiction to register a crime as the petitioners have not committed any offence. According to him, foreign made foreign liquor (champagne) was not in the legal possession of the petitioners at the time of seizure. It is further contended that the goods were transported from Maharashtra to Angamali on a valid bond to bond transfer permit issued by the proper officer of Customs, as empowered by the Customs Act, 1962. 7. There is no dispute regarding the facts asserted in the final report. However, the contention of the petitioners is that such facts do not constitute an offence and therefore, the prosecution is vitiated as it is without any legal basis. Petitioners admit that 30 cases of champagne were imported from M/s. Moet Hennessy India Pvt. Ltd. Annexure-III is the document showing this fact. It is further admitted that 30 cases of champagne were dispatched to M/s. Jet Airways custom bonded warehouse. Cartons were transported from Panvel, Mumbai to Cochin via train is also admitted. Challenge relate to the legality and propriety of seizure and registration of crime by the 1st respondent, invoking the provisions of the Abkari Act. 8. One of the charges against the petitioners is that they violated Section 6 of the Abkari Act. That provision deals with prohibition of import of liquor or intoxicating drug. The term "import" means "to bring into the State" as per Section 3(16) of the Abkari Act. Section 6 of the Abkari Act says that no liquor shall be imported unless the permission of the Government or any officer authorised by the Government in this behalf is obtained and unless the duties, taxes, fees, etc., as are due to the Government under the Abkari Act, have been paid. 9. Another allegation against the petitioners is violation of Section 10 of the Abkari Act. It deals with transporting of liquor. Word "transport" is defined in Section 3(18) of the Abkari Act as "to move from one place to another within the State". Learned Prosecutor submitted that acts of bringing 30 cases of champagne via train to Ernakulam and moving the articles from Ernakulam South Railway Station to Angamali constitute legal acts prohibited by Sections 6 and 10 of the Abkari Act. 10. Learned Prosecutor submitted that acts of bringing 30 cases of champagne via train to Ernakulam and moving the articles from Ernakulam South Railway Station to Angamali constitute legal acts prohibited by Sections 6 and 10 of the Abkari Act. 10. This Court had occasion to consider the intent and purport of the terms "import" and "transport" in Narayanan Nair Vs. State of Kerala, After considering the said provisions, learned Single Judge of this Court found that Import" and "transport" mentioned in the Abkari Act are two acts, which are different from each other and mutually exclusive. Placing reliance on a decision rendered by the Apex Court in Puranmall Agarwalla Vs. The State of Orissa, learned Judge found that act of "bringing" is different from "being in possession". 11. To constitute an offence u/s 55(a) of the Abkari Act, as indicated in the caption to the Section, there must be illegal import, etc., committed by the accused person. Further, the act of import, transport or possession of liquor must be in contravention of the Abkari Act or any Rule made thereunder. 12. Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of three Honourable Judges in Bhinka and Others Vs. Charan Singh, quoted with approval the opinion of learned author Maxwell expressed in his treatise "On Interpretation of Statutes" that the headings prefixed to Sections or sets of Sections in some modern Statutes are regarded as preambles to those Sections. They cannot control the plain words of Statutes, but they may explain the ambiguous words. The Supreme Court stated therein thus: If there is any doubt in the interpretation of the words in the section, the heading certainly helps us to resolve that doubt....... So, doubt as to whether all sorts of import, transport or possession of liquor will be an offence u/s 55 of the Abkari Act can be answered by interpreting that illegal import or illegal transport or illegal possession of liquor alone becomes punishable u/s 55 of the Abkari Act. Purport of the term "possession" u/s 55 of the Abkari Act was considered by the Supreme Court in P.K. Arjunan Vs. State of Kerala, Following the dictum in Inder Sain Vs. State of Punjab, it was held that what was emphasised in the provision was that conscious possession of the accused was necessary for the purpose of establishing guilt. 13. Purport of the term "possession" u/s 55 of the Abkari Act was considered by the Supreme Court in P.K. Arjunan Vs. State of Kerala, Following the dictum in Inder Sain Vs. State of Punjab, it was held that what was emphasised in the provision was that conscious possession of the accused was necessary for the purpose of establishing guilt. 13. In the backdrop of these aspects under the Abkari Act, we shall now examine the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Chapter IX of the Customs Act deals with "warehousing". Section 57 of the Customs Act deals with appointing of public warehouses and Section 58 deals with licensing of private warehouses. Section 58 of the Customs Act empowers certain class of officers of Customs to give license to private warehouses wherein dutiable goods imported by or on behalf of a licensee be deposited. Annexure-I is the licence for a private bonded warehouse issued by the office of the Commissioner of Customs recognizing M/s. Casino Air Catering & Flight Services, Nayathodu, Angamali as an approved private warehouse. Annexure-III letter, by the manufacturer of the champagne, viz., M/s. Moet Hennessy India Pvt. Ltd., issued to the Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Cochin shows that seized champagne was in the course of transport from JNPT warehouse at Raigad in Maharashtra to the private warehouse mentioned in Annexure-I. This fact is further clarified by the Customs Department in Annexure-V letter issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Bond Section, Raigad, Maharashtra to the Circle Inspector of Excise, Ernakulam. 14. Section 59 of the Customs Act deals with the manner in which warehousing bond is to be executed and the legal obligations of a person executing such a bond. When the provisions of Section 59 of the Customs Act have complied with in respect of any goods, the proper officer, defined in Section 2(34) of the Customs Act, may make an order permitting the deposit of goods in a warehouse. 15. One of the most relevant provisions in the Customs Act in the context of this case is Section 62. It says that all warehoused goods shall be subject to the control of the proper officer. It prohibits a person from entering a warehouse or removing goods therefrom without the permission of the proper officer. 15. One of the most relevant provisions in the Customs Act in the context of this case is Section 62. It says that all warehoused goods shall be subject to the control of the proper officer. It prohibits a person from entering a warehouse or removing goods therefrom without the permission of the proper officer. The proper officer may cause any warehouse to be locked with the lock of the Customs Department and no person shall remove or break such locks. All these aspects in Section 62 of the Customs Act clearly establish that the ultimate control of the goods warehoused remains with the proper officer of the Customs. 16. Section 67 of the Customs Act deals with removal of goods from one warehouse to another. Annexure-III letter issued by the manufacturer of the champagne and Annexure-V letter issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Bond Section to the Circle Inspector of Excise, Ernakulam show that the ownership of champagne was changed from M/s. Moet Hennessy India Pvt. Ltd. to M/s. Jet Airways India Pvt. Ltd. So, as permitted by the Customs, the Company acquired ownership over the liquor that was being transported is evident from these documents. Section 67 of the Customs Act says that the owner of any warehoused goods may with the permission of the proper officer, remove them from one warehouse to another subject to such conditions as may be prescribed for the due arrival of the warehoused goods at the warehouse to which the removal is permitted. It is the case of petitioners that when the goods were transported from one bonded warehouse to another with valid permission of the proper officer, they were intercepted at the Railway Station, Ernakulam by the 1st respondent. It is the contention of the petitioners that actually owner of the goods was not in possession at the time of interception and seizure. This argument is sustainable since the provisions in the Customs Act discussed above will clearly show that the proper officer retains control over the warehoused goods, even when the goods are in transit. This becomes all the more clear, if we read Section 68 of the Customs Act. It deals with clearance of warehoused goods for home consumption. Relevant portion of Section 68, omitting the provisos, reads as follows: 68. This becomes all the more clear, if we read Section 68 of the Customs Act. It deals with clearance of warehoused goods for home consumption. Relevant portion of Section 68, omitting the provisos, reads as follows: 68. Clearance of warehoused goods for home consumption.--The importer of any warehoused goods may clear them for home consumption if-- (a) a bill of entry for home consumption in respect of such goods has been presented in the prescribed form; (b) the import duty leviable on such goods and all penalties, rent, interest and other charges payable in respect of such goods have been paid; and (c) an order for clearance of such goods for home consumption has been made by the proper officer; It is evident that the importer of any warehoused goods gets possession in the legal sense only on presentation of a bill in the prescribed form and on payment of import duty leviable on such goods and all other payments mentioned in the provision. After complying with these formalities, an order for clearance of such goods will have to be made by the proper officer for home consumption of the goods. Section 71 of the Customs Act prescribes that no warehoused goods shall be taken out of a warehouse except on clearance for home consumption as provided by the Customs Act. All these provisions in the Customs Act will clearly establish that the goods warehoused under the provisions of the Customs Act remain in the custody of the proper officer and the owner of the goods does not get possession of the same, unless formalities prescribed u/s 68 of the Customs Act have been complied with. There is no case for the prosecution that before the liquor was seized, owner of goods had paid import duty and other charges on the goods and actually obtained clearance of the goods from the proper officer of the Customs. Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the aforementioned Sections in the Customs Act, 1962 with Sections 6, 10 and 55(a) of the Abkari Act the only possible deduction is that the petitioners were neither importing liquor against the provisions of Section 6 of the Abkari Act nor transporting the same in violation of Section 10 of the Abkari Act. By no stretch of reasoning it can be said that the petitioners were in possession of the goods when it was in transit. By no stretch of reasoning it can be said that the petitioners were in possession of the goods when it was in transit. Since the petitioners were not illegally importing or transporting or possessing the goods, offence punishable u/s 55(a) of the Abkari Act is not attracted. Therefore, foundation of the prosecution case is found to be legally unsustainable. 17. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that since the quantity of liquor involved in this case is excessive than prescribed under the Act and Rules, offence u/s 63 of the Abkari Act will be attracted. Section 63 of the Abkari Act deals with punishment for offences not otherwise provided for in the Act Since I have already found that the petitioners have not committed any offence, there is no question of attracting Section 63 of the Abkari Act. Therefore, this argument of the prosecution cannot be accepted. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners cited a decision rendered by this Court in Assistant Commissioner of Customs Vs. State of Kerala, to support his case. Facts of the case show that certain quantity of foreign made foreign liquor was seized by the Excise authorities. The goods was initially deposited at the Customs Warehouse, New Delhi. As in this case, the goods involved in the other case was also seized from the South Railway Station, Ernakulam, while it was being transported from the Bonded Warehouse, Delhi to CWC Warehouse, Willington Island, Kochi with due permission of the Customs. This Court considered the legality of search and seizure and found that the Excise officials were not empowered to seize the goods which was in transit from one bonded warehouse to another. 19. Yet another decision relied on by the petitioners is Shreeji Transport Services (P) Vs. Commissioner of Excise and Others, This Court held that transport of goods from one bonded warehouse to another was done under the proper control of the Customs Officials and therefore, no offence under the Abkari Act could be made out. On a careful reading of the said two decisions, it can be seen that the specific issues relating to import, transport or possession of liquor under the Abkari Act viz-a-viz the Customs Act was not raised or considered therein. On a careful reading of the said two decisions, it can be seen that the specific issues relating to import, transport or possession of liquor under the Abkari Act viz-a-viz the Customs Act was not raised or considered therein. However, the decisions mentioned above render support to the reasoning that no offence could attract when liquor is moved from one bonded warehouse to another bonded warehouse under the authority of the proper officer of the Customs for two reasons - (i) it cannot be treated as an import u/s 6 or transport u/s 10 of the Abkari Act, and (ii) the owner of goods or his representative, while transporting liquor from one Customs bonded warehouse to another does not come into possession of the goods at all and therefore question of attracting an offence punishable u/s 55(a) of the Abkari Act does not arise. Therefore, I find that the prosecution against the petitioners is legally unsustainable. Annexure-XII, final report in Crime No. 11 of 2008 of Excise Range Office, Ernakulam, which is pending in committal proceedings, CP No. 6 of 2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II Ernakulam and all further proceedings thereunder are liable to be quashed. In the result, Annexure-XII, final report in Crime No. 11 of 2008 of Excise Range Office, Ernakulam, which is pending in committal proceedings, CP No. 6 of 2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II Ernakulam and all further proceedings thereunder are hereby quashed. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.