ORDER : B. Sudheendra Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner is the R.C. owner of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-46-M-2654 Tata Nano Car involved in crime No.290/2016 of Vadakara Excise Range registered for the offence under Section 13 read with Section 63 of the Abkari Act (for short "the Act") on the allegation that on 20.12.2016 at 5.30 p.m., the accused persons therein were found transporting 15 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in the said vehicle, in contravention of the provisions of the Act. 2. The petitioner approached the court below under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for the release of vehicle. The court below as per Annexure-1 ordered to release the vehicle to the petitioner. However, the said vehicle was not taken by the petitioner from the court after executing the bond as directed by the court. Meanwhile, the Deputy Excise Commissioner issued notice to the petitioner as provided under Section 67C(1)(a) of the Act to show cause why the vehicle should not confiscated. The petitioner submitted reply dated 16.1.2017. Thereafter, Annexure-IV order was passed by the Deputy Excise Commissioner confiscating the vehicle. 3. Heard. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner is not an accused in the above crime. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that although Section 67C (1)(c) of the Act provides that the petitioner has to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter before passing any order of confiscation, no such opportunity was granted to the petitioner and hence the order of confiscation cannot be said to be legal. There can be no doubt that the enquiry envisaged by Section 67C(1) of the Act is not an empty formality. Under the said provision, the show cause notice shall mention the grounds on which the property is proposed to be confiscated, and the person to whom it is issued is to be afforded an opportunity to submit a written representation and a reasonable opportunity of hearing. In this case, it is clear from Annexure-IV order that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner as provided under Section 67C(1)(c) of the Act. A reading of the provisions of Section 67C(1) of the Act would make it clear that the provisions of Section 67C(1) of the Act are mandatory. Therefore, the non-compliance of the said provisions would vitiate the order of confiscation. A reading of the provisions of Section 67C(1) of the Act would make it clear that the provisions of Section 67C(1) of the Act are mandatory. Therefore, the non-compliance of the said provisions would vitiate the order of confiscation. Since no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner as provided under Section 67C(1)(c) of the Act, Annexure IV order passed by the Deputy Excise Commissioner cannot be said to be legal and correct and consequently, the same cannot be sustained. Therefore, I set aside the same. Annexure-V order was passed by the court below only on the reason that the vehicle had been already confiscated. Since Annexure-IV order stands set aside, Annexure V order cannot be sustained and consequently, I set aside the same. In the result, this Crl.M.C. stands allowed, setting aside Annexure-IV and Annexure-V orders and directing the learned Magistrate to release the vehicle to the petitioner in accordance with Annexure-I order passed by the learned Magistrate. The 2nd respondent shall be at liberty to pass order afresh under Section 67B of the Act after complying with the above said mandatory provisions of the Act. The petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the 2nd respondent, if the 2nd respondent decides to confiscate the vehicle. The amount already deposited by the petitioner as per Annexure-II shall be treated as cash security directed in Annexure-1 order and as provided under Section 53 B of the Act.