Judgment 1. This is an application filed by the petitioner to modify condition No-1 in Annexure A1 order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara in Crl. M.P. No. 1630 of 2014 under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is the registered owner of KL-65/A.460 Hyundai Eon Era Plus Car. The car involved in an abkari Crime No. 25 of 2014 of Vatakara Excise Range without his knowledge and he has not been made an accused as well. Even Section 67B of the Abkari Act is not attracted in such cases as evident from Sub Clause (2) of Section 67C of the Abkari Act itself. So, petitioner filed an application for interim custody of the vehicle and the learned magistrate by Annexure A1 order allowed the application on condition that he will have to furnish cash security of Rs. 2,10,000/- as condition for getting interim custody. On account of this, he is finding it difficult to get the vehicle released. He is prepared to furnish property security instead of cash deposit. So, petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this court seeking the following relief:- "To allow this petition and modify the Condition No.1 in Annexure A-1 Order and grant interim custody of the Car bearing Reg. No. KL/65A.460 to the petitioner on furnishing sufficient security by way of property security to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara, in the interest of justice." 3. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Rule 4 of The Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles) Rules, 1996 envisages that for getting temporary custody of the vehicle which was intended to be confiscated by the authorities for involving in abkari offence, the amount equivalent to the value of the vehicle has to be deposited in the Treasury and on producing the deposit receipt, the vehicle can be temporarily released by the authorized officer. In order to remove the difficulties caused to the owners of the vehicle on account of the same, now Section 53B was added to the statute by Amendment Act 3 of 2010 which came in to effect from 07.12.2009, whereby it can be released on executing sufficient bond by way of cash security equal to the market value of such vehicle or conveyance. If it is cash security, then, the purpose will be defeated. He is prepared to furnish property security for this amount and court is at liberty to create a charge on the property which the petitioner is proposed to produce as well. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that the condition of cash security has been mentioned in the section, in order to enable the Government to recover the amount on confiscation without resorting to other coercive steps, if the property proposed to be confiscated, is not available later or the party fails to produce the article for proceeding with the confiscation. There is no necessity to modify the condition. 6. Heard both sides. 7. It is an admitted fact that the Excise Officials have seized the vehicle No. KL-65/A.460 Hyundai Eon Era Plus Car belonging to the petitioner. The above said car was alleged to have involved in the commission of an Abkari Crime. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner filed an application under Section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure for interim custody of the vehicle and the learned Magistrate by Annexure A1 order, allowed the application and relying on 53B of the Abkari Act directed the petitioner to deposit cash security of Rs. 2,10,000/- apart from executing a bond for the said amount. This condition is being challenged by the petitioner by filing this application. 8. Earlier, there was no such provision in the Act. The disposal of vehicles in respect of proposed confiscation of vehicles were dealt with by Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles), Rules 1996. 2,10,000/- apart from executing a bond for the said amount. This condition is being challenged by the petitioner by filing this application. 8. Earlier, there was no such provision in the Act. The disposal of vehicles in respect of proposed confiscation of vehicles were dealt with by Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles), Rules 1996. Rule 4 of the said Rules deals with the same which reads as follows:- Rule 4 – Carts, vessels or other conveyances- "(1) (a) When an authorized officer adjudging a confiscation of cart, vessel or other conveyance under section 67E or 67F of the Act offers the owner of such property the option of paying in lieu of confiscation, a fine equivalent to the market value of the cart, vessel or other conveyance as fixed by the Mechanical Engineer of the Excise Department or any Mechanical Engineer of and above the rank of an Assistant Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department of the State, and if the owner of such property agrees to accept such option, he shall be required to pay forthwith such sum as may already have been spent towards the safe custody and upkeep of such property, and to deposit such further sum as may appear likely to be required for such purposes until the payment of the fine. (b) A period of fifteen days shall be allowed for the payment of such fine, if the fine is paid within such period, the property shall at once be released to the owner together with such part of the sum so deposited as may remain unspent on such purposes, and if the fine is not paid within the said period of 15 days, the order of confiscation shall remain in full effect in the same way as if no option of the payment of a fine had been offered. (c) There shall be no appeal against adjudication of an optional fine. (d) An appeal may be preferred against the amount of such fine provided that the fine has already been paid. (c) There shall be no appeal against adjudication of an optional fine. (d) An appeal may be preferred against the amount of such fine provided that the fine has already been paid. (2) (a) The cart, vessel or other conveyance liable to be confiscated under the Act may be released temporarily by the authorized officer to its owner on depositing an amount equivalent to the market value of the cart, vessel or other conveyance, fixed by the Mechanical Engineer of the Excise Department or any Mechanical Engineer of and above the rank of an Assistant Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department of the State in the Treasury Savings Account in favour of the Commissioner of Excise. (b) The cart, vessel or other conveyance so released (temporarily) shall be produced before the Authorized Officer when final order of confiscation is passed by the Competent Authority and communicated to the owner of such property by Registered Post. 9. It is clear from Rule 4(2) of the said Rules, the temporary custody of the vehicle can be given by the authorized officer only on proof of deposit of the value of the proposed confiscated article as valued by the authorities before the Treasury. Only on deposit of that amount, the vehicle can be released. Probably, the intention behind that rule is to ensure recovery of the amount, if article is not available on a later stage due to the default on the part of the person to whom the vehicle was given temporarily if ultimately confiscation was ordered. 10. Now by an amendment viz. Amendment Act 3 of 2010, Section 53B has been incorporated which reads as follows:- "53B. 10. Now by an amendment viz. Amendment Act 3 of 2010, Section 53B has been incorporated which reads as follows:- "53B. Juridiction of courts on articles seized: Whenever any vehicle or other conveyance used for committing any offence is seized or detained under this Act, and if any court finds that it shall be released temporarily, it shall do so with direction to execute sufficient bond by way of cash security equivalent to the market value of such vehicle or conveyance, to be fixed by the Mechanical Engineer of the Excise Department or any Mechanical Engineer of or above the rank of an Assistant Executive Engineer of the State Public Works Department, for production of such vehicle or conveyance on demand before the court or the authorized officer and such order shall not prevent the authorized officer from taking or continuing action under section 67B of this Act." 11. It is true that in that Section, it was mentioned that "the vehicle seized and detained under the Act can be released temporarily with direction to execute sufficient bond by way of cash security equivalent to the market value of such vehicle to be fixed by Mechanical Engineer of Excise department." If the intention of the legislature was to direct the party to furnish cash security instead of executing a bond, that would have been specifically mentioned in the section. It is seen from the section that instead of cash security, directing the party to execute a bond for that amount for releasing the vehicle, or other security if available to the satisfaction of the court other than cash security appears to be the intention of the legislature while incorporating that section and it is to avoid difficulty caused to the owners of the vehicle by imposing stringent conditions of cash security for allowing temporary custody of the vehicle. So, the necessity of directing cash security by the court below on the basis of the above words appears to be not correct when analyzing the intention of the legislature in enacting the provision to avoid the difficulties mentioned in Rule 4 of the Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles) Rules, 1996 which earlier intended for covering the area of release and the temporary custody during the pendency of proceedings under Section 67C of the Abkari Act. 12. 12. While interpreting the provisions, it must be interpreted in such a way as to give its literal meaning and that has to be interpreted for the benefit of the parties in whose favour the benefit was intended by the legislature. Purposive interpretation has to be made in that way as well. If such an interpretation is made, then, it can be understood only in such a way that the party has to executive a bond for the amount assessed by the authorities equivalent to the amount so assessed or other security which can be created by way of bond instead of deposit of cash security for giving interim custody. Otherwise, the purpose will be defeated. 13. In this case, petitioner is prepared to give the property security so as to ensure the recovery of the amount later if confiscation is ordered even in cases where he has committed default in producing the vehicle on a later stage. So, considering the circumstances and also in view of the discussions made above and also considering the offer made by the Counsel for the petitioner of producing property security, this court feels that the condition imposed by the court below directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2,10,000/- which is the amount assessed by the Mechanical Engineer of the Excise Department as the value of the vehicle can be set aside and the same can be modified as follows: The petitioner is directed to execute a bond for Rs. 2,10,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vatakara. The petitioner shall also furnish property security while executing the above bond showing the schedule of the property to be given as security equivalent to the value of the vehicle assessed by the Mechanical Engineer to the satisfaction of that court and the court shall be accept the bond making a charge on the property for realization of the amount, if ultimately confiscation is ordered later, under Section 67C of the Act by the authorized officer to recover the amount and inform the creation of the charge to the concerned Registrar's office to make a note of this in their respective register. With the above modification, the petition is disposed of. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court immediately.