JUDGMENT : 1. The Petitioner is the owner of a Mahindra Thar vehicle bearing Regn. No.KL-45-L-84. He filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 Order by which his vehicle was confiscated under Section 67B of the Abkari Act and Ext.P5 Appellate Order under Section 67E of the Abkari Act confirming Ext.P4 Order and to release the vehicle on the ground that Crime No.1707/2014 of the Kodakara Police Station in connection to which the vehicle was confiscated ended in acquittal of the accused as per Ext.P6 Order of the Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Irinjalakkuda in S.C.No.581/2015. 2. The Second Respondent filed the Counter Affidavit dated 24.06.2024 opposing the prayers in the Writ Petition contending, inter alia, that the vehicle of the petitioner was found loaded with 150 Litres of toddy in 5 cans during the search conducted by the Sub Inspector of Police Kodakara on 15/10/2014 in the house of one Sri. Laiju in which 5 litres of toddy in a drum and 60 litres of toddy in 2 cans and other utensils were also found; that the said Laiju had valid Inter Division Toddy Transport Permit to transport toddy upto 30.09.2014; that the vehicle of the petitioner was the permitted vehicle; that the petitioner failed to prove that the involvement of the vehicle was without his knowledge and that he had taken reasonable and necessary precaution against the misuse of the vehicle; that admittedly the petitioner permitted to use the vehicle for transportation of toddy in the vehicle without valid permit; that the vehicle used for transporting toddy without valid Permit is liable for confiscation; that the Authorised Officer is entitled to proceed with the confiscation proceedings dehors the other provisions of the Act, irrespective whether the accused is prosecuted or not for the offence involved and irrespective of the outcome of such prosecution; and that the confiscation order is perfectly legal and valid. 3. I heard Sri. Britto N.L. for the petitioner and Learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. Bimal K. Nath for the respondents. 4. In the light of the pleadings of the parties and the arguments made in support of the same the following issue arises in this Writ Petition. a. Whether the vehicle confiscated under Section 67B of the Abkari Act is liable to be released when the Criminal case in connection to which the vehicle was confiscated ended in acquittal of the accused? 5. a. Whether the vehicle confiscated under Section 67B of the Abkari Act is liable to be released when the Criminal case in connection to which the vehicle was confiscated ended in acquittal of the accused? 5. The provisions relevant for adjudication of the above issue are Sections 67B and 67C of the Abkari Act. They are extracted hereunder. 67B. Confiscation by Abkari Officers in certain cases.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, where any liquor, intoxicating drug material, still, utensil, implement or apparatus or any receptacle, package or covering in which such liquor, intoxicating drug, material, still, utensil, implement or apparatus is found or any animal, cart, vessel, or other conveyance used in carrying the same is seized and detained under the provisions of this Act, the officer seizing and detaining such property shall, without any unreasonable delay, produce the same before an officer authorised by the Government in this behalf by notification in the Gazette, not being below the rank of an Assistant Excise Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as the authorised officer). (2) Where an authorised officer seizes and detains any property specified in sub-section (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. (3) When making an order of confiscation under subsection (2), the authorised officer may also order that such of the properties to which the order of confiscation relates, which in his opinion cannot be preserved or are not fit for human consumption, be destroyed. 67C. (3) When making an order of confiscation under subsection (2), the authorised officer may also order that such of the properties to which the order of confiscation relates, which in his opinion cannot be preserved or are not fit for human consumption, be destroyed. 67C. Issue of show cause notice before confiscation under S.67B.-(1) No order confiscating any property shall be made under S.67B unless the person from whom the same is seized- (a) is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate such property; (b) is given an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation; and (c) is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), no order confiscating any animal, cart, vessel or other conveyance shall be made under S.67B if the owner of the animal, cart, vessel or other conveyance proves to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that it was used in carrying the liquor or intoxicating drug or the material, still, utensil, implement or apparatus or the receptacle, package or covering without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person in charge of the animal, cart, vessel or other conveyance and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. 6. Counsel for the petitioner cited the decisions of this Court in Suraj K.R. V. Excise Inspector, Thrithala 2013 (2) KHC 211 and Celine Antony V. State of Kerala and Others Neutral Citation No.2018 KER 50748 and State of Kerala and Others V. Navaru Swapna Reddy 2022 (1) KHC 563 in support of his submissions. 7. Learned Government Pleader cited the decisions of this Court in Shaiju V. Assistant Excise Commissioner 2008 (3) KLT 78 and Sub Inspector of Police, Cherpulassery and Others V. Rajesh 2017 (4) KHC 917 in support of his submissions. 8. The Counsel for the petitioner argued that in Ext.P6 Order of acquittal there is clear finding that the article found in the vehicle was not toddy. On the other hand, Learned Government Pleader submitted that the detection of toddy from the vehicle is not disputed by the petitioner at any point of time. 8. The Counsel for the petitioner argued that in Ext.P6 Order of acquittal there is clear finding that the article found in the vehicle was not toddy. On the other hand, Learned Government Pleader submitted that the detection of toddy from the vehicle is not disputed by the petitioner at any point of time. He invited my attention to Ext.P3 Reply submitted by the petitioner to Ext.P1 Show Cause Notice issued by the Authorised Officer wherein his case was only that the toddy was meant for destruction. He admitted that the Transport Permit was not there at the time of detection. 9. I find from Ext.P3 Order of Confiscation and Ext.P5 Appellate Order that detection of toddy from the vehicle and absence of the Permit are the specific findings in support of the order of confiscation. 10. Counsel for the petitioner argued that in Suraj K.R’s case (supra) the confiscation order was quashed on the acquittal of the accused in the criminal case finding that there was no prohibited substance in the toddy to hold that toddy is adulterated. According to the Counsel, the same is the situation here also. It is seen from the said decision that it was not the only reason to quash the confiscation order. There are clear findings that the owner of the vehicle ensured that the licencee had a valid permit for the transportation of liquor and that it is not specifically stated in the impugned order that the Authorised Officer was satisfied that the owner had not taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against improper use of the vehicle. The Learned Single Judge expressed the view that the precaution that normally an owner of a lorry can take in respect of transport of toddy is that the transport is supported by a valid permit and that it is plain for anybody to see that the owner of a lorry who hires out his vehicle for transport of toddy cannot in addition to seeing that the transport is in accordance with valid permit for such transport, take the trouble of taking sample from the toddy and testing it in the chemical laboratory to see that it does not contain any adulterating material. Hence this decision will not help the petitioner in anyway. 11. Hence this decision will not help the petitioner in anyway. 11. In Celine Antony’s case (supra) cited from the petitioner’s side, the Confiscation order was quashed by the Learned Single Judge on the acquittal of the accused in criminal case. But in Shaiju V’s case (supra) cited by the Learned Senior Government Pleader it is categorically held that irrespective of whether the accused is prosecuted or not for the offence involved and irrespective of its outcome, in view of the non obstante clause contained in S.67(B), a vehicle involved in an Abkari offence is liable for confiscation. The relevant Paragraphs in Shaiju V’s case (supra) are extracted hereunder. 5. Confiscation of a vehicle involved in an Abkari offence is ordered under S.67(B) of the Abkari Act. S.67B(1), insofar as it is relevant provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or in any other law for the time being in force, where any liquor, found or any vessel, or other conveyance used in carrying the same is seized and detained under the provisions of the Act, the officer seizing and detaining such property shall, without any unreasonable delay, produce the same before an officer authorised by the Government. S.67B(2) provides that where the authorised officer is satisfied that an offence has been committed in respect of or by means of the property and that such property is liable for confiscation, such officer may, whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the commission of such offence, order confiscation of such property. 6. From the above, it can be seen that the section opens with a non obstante clause and it also provides that irrespective of whether prosecution is instituted for the commission of such offence or not, the authorised officer may exercise his power of confiscation. Legislature has used the non obstante clause and specifically provided that the section will have overriding effect on the other provisions in the Act, so that the Authorised Officer is entitled to proceed with confiscation proceedings de hors the other provisions of the Act. Thus the powers under S.67B are independent of the penal provisions contained in the Abkari Act. Therefore, it is evident that irrespective of whether the accused is prosecuted or not for the offence involved and irrespective of its outcome, in view of the non obstante clause contained in S.67(B), a vehicle involved in an abkari offence is liable for confiscation. Thus the powers under S.67B are independent of the penal provisions contained in the Abkari Act. Therefore, it is evident that irrespective of whether the accused is prosecuted or not for the offence involved and irrespective of its outcome, in view of the non obstante clause contained in S.67(B), a vehicle involved in an abkari offence is liable for confiscation. 12. In Sub Inspector of Police, Cherpulassery and Others (supra) the Division Bench of this Court affirmed the view in Shaiju V’s case (supra) by holding that the question whether the accused was acquitted in the criminal case in respect of the offence under the Abkari Act or whether he was let free pursuant to compounding of the offence under S.67A of the Act, is not a relevant or significant aspect in pursuing steps under S.67B of the Act dealing with the power of confiscation. 13. I am in respectful agreement with the view of the Learned Single Judge in Shaiju V’s case (supra) which is affirmed by the Division Bench in Sub Inspector of Police, Cherpulassery and Others (supra) and I prefer to follow the same. 14. I do not find anything which is helpful for the petitioner in Navaru Swapna Reddy’s case (supra) cited by the petitioner. In the said case, the confiscation order was set aside holding improper exercise of discretion by the Authorised Officer. In the case on hand, I find that the Authorised Officer has properly exercised his discretion based on sound and valid reasons. 15. To sum up, under Section 67B, notwithstanding anything contained in the Abkari Act or any other law in force, if the Authorised officer is satisfied that an offence under this Act has been committed in respect of the vehicle and that the vehicle is liable to confiscation under the Abkari Act, the Authorised officer may order confiscation of the property whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the commission of such offence and irrespective of the result of the prosecution, in case prosecution is instituted. Confiscation Order is not mandatory even if the Authorised Officer is satisfied that the offence is committed with respect to the vehicle. His power is discretionary. Confiscation Order is not mandatory even if the Authorised Officer is satisfied that the offence is committed with respect to the vehicle. His power is discretionary. Under Section 67C(2), no confiscation order shall be passed if the owner of the vehicle proves to the satisfaction of the Authorised officer that it was used without his knowledge or connivance and that he had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against the misuse. These provisions indicate that the prosecution of the offences under the Abkari Act and the proceedings under S.67B for confiscation of the vehicle involved in the offence, are independent and separate. The outcome of the criminal case has no bearing on the confiscation proceedings. The acquittal of the accused, whatever be the ground or reason, will not render the order of confiscation of vehicle illegal. It is the burden of the owner to establish not only that he was not having knowledge and but also that he had taken all reasonable and necessary precaution to see that the vehicle was never put to such use. When the vehicle was used for transport of liquor without valid Transport Permit issued by the Excise authorities, it is to be presumed that the owner has not taken reasonable and necessary precaution to see that the vehicle was never put to misuse. 16. The contentions raised in the Writ Petition are sustainable. Accordingly the writ Petition is dismissed.