JUDGMENT : Ashok Menon, J. The State is in appeal before us challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.10251/2012 wherein a vehicle ordered to be confiscated under Section 67B of the Abkari Act (Act 1 of 1077) was ordered to be released forthwith to the petitioner. 2. The facts in brief are that a tanker lorry bearing Regn.No.MH-04/CU-9631, belonging to the petitioner was allegedly transporting licenced spirit to a concern in Thrissur. On 31.10.2009, the Station House Officer of Koratty Police Station found the vehicle parked beside the highway and found some persons, including the driver, siphoning spirit from the tanker lorry into plastic cans. The driver escaped. The persons who were involved, were apprehended and the vehicle seized. Crime No.796/2009 was registered under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act against them. 3. The writ petitioner, who was the owner of the vehicle, filed an application before the third respondent for release of the vehicle belonging to him. It is contended by him that even without affording an opportunity of being heard, Ext.P5 order was passed by the third respondent confiscating the vehicle under Section 67B of the Abkari Act and in lieu of the confiscation, he was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.7 lakhs. The petitioner challenged Ext.P5 order before the second respondent, but the appeal was dismissed vide Ext.P6. But the amount to be deposited to get the vehicle released was re-assessed at Rs.4,50,000/-. The order was communicated to the petitioner vide Ext.P7. It is challenging Exts.P6 and P7 that the Writ Petition was filed. 4. The findings in Exts.P6 and P7 are to the effect that petitioner had through his driver used the vehicle for transporting spirit, on account of which the commission of an offence was occasioned under the Abkari Act. Hence the confiscation was ordered. It was found that the petitioner as the RC owner had not taken sufficient precaution against misuse of the vehicle. 5. On considering Ext.P2 FIR, the learned Single Judge found that the first information report speaks only of commission of offence under Section 55(a) for siphoning of spirit covered by a valid permit from the lorry belonging to the petitioner for the purpose of unauthorised sale. 5. On considering Ext.P2 FIR, the learned Single Judge found that the first information report speaks only of commission of offence under Section 55(a) for siphoning of spirit covered by a valid permit from the lorry belonging to the petitioner for the purpose of unauthorised sale. The learned Single Judge observed that it is not possible to accept the contention of the prosecution that the fact of siphoning of spirit from the vehicle in question would amount to commission of an offence by the employees of the petitioner by means of vehicle in question. It is also observed that there is no allegation that the petitioner himself was involved in the commission of offence. 6. The learned Senior Government Pleader submits that the vehicle at the time of detection of offence was at a location further away from the destination, as per the licence of transportation. However, the petitioner was not put to notice of any overshooting of the destination by the vehicle. Since there is no allegation whatsoever that any offence has been committed “in respect of or by means of” such vehicle, which is the jurisdictional pre-requisite for the exercise of power vested under Section 67B(2) of the Abkari Act, the confiscation as per Exts.P6 and P7 order are vitiated and liable to be set aside. The Writ Petition was thus disposed of. 7. The State is aggrieved by this judgment. We heard the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner. 8. To attract the provisions of Section 67B(2) of the Abkari Act, it is essential to comply with the provisions thereof, which reads thus: “67B. Confiscation by Abkari Officers in certain cases. 7. The State is aggrieved by this judgment. We heard the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner. 8. To attract the provisions of Section 67B(2) of the Abkari Act, it is essential to comply with the provisions thereof, which reads thus: “67B. Confiscation by Abkari Officers in certain cases. (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) Where an authorised officer seizes and detains any property specified in subsection (1) or where any such property is produced before an authorised officer under that sub-section and he is satisfied that an offence under this Act has been committed in respect of or by means of that property and that such property is liable to confiscation under this Act, such authorised officer may, whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the commission of such offence, order confiscation of such property and where such property consists of any receptacle or package, the authorised officer may also order confiscation of all contents thereof.” A reading of sub-Section(2) of Section 67B would make it adequately clear that for the purpose of confiscating the vehicle, offence under the Abkari Act must have been committed in respect of or by means of that property and only then would such property be liable to confiscation. The offence that is registered as per the FIR is one under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, which reads thus:- “55. For illegal import, etc. - Whoever in contravention of this Act or of any rule or order made under this Act (a) imports, exports, transports, transits or possesses liquor or any intoxicating drug.” 9. The employees of the petitioner and some others are also made accused in the crime and they were found to be in possession of spirit siphoned out from the tanker lorry in contravention of the Abkari Act. The tanker was not carrying contraband spirit. The offence is not for overshooting the destination with the knowledge of the petitioner. Siphoning of licenced spirit into cans for the purpose of illicit sale is the allegation, which according to the authorities attracts the offence under Section 55(a). There is absolutely no material to show that the owner of the vehicle had consented to such siphoning and that the vehicle was being used for the purpose of transporting illicit spirit. Siphoning of licenced spirit into cans for the purpose of illicit sale is the allegation, which according to the authorities attracts the offence under Section 55(a). There is absolutely no material to show that the owner of the vehicle had consented to such siphoning and that the vehicle was being used for the purpose of transporting illicit spirit. It is also to be stated unequivocally that the vehicle was carrying spirit; not a contraband, and was not a means by which the offence was committed. The vehicle was validly carrying spirit, from which the spirit was siphoned by the employees and others. The vehicle was not the means by which the offence was committed. Nor was it the property in respect of which the offence was committed. The property in respect of which the offence was committed was the spirit siphoned off from the vehicle over which the owner of the vehicle had no control. Hence, the confiscation was not justified, insofar as, the abkari offence alleged is not in respect of or by means of the petitioner's vehicle. The learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in setting aside Exts.P6 and P7. We find no reason to interfere. The Writ Appeal fails and is only to be dismissed and we do so. No order as to costs.