JUDGMENT : P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. The above Writ Petition (Crl.) is filed seeking the following reliefs: “1) To call for the records leading to Exhibit P9 and Exhibit P10 orders and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari; 2) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to afresh consider and take appropriate action in the Exhibit P7 notice by giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the meaning to natural justice principles, in the interest of justice; And 3) Such other Writ, Orders or Directions deem fit on facts and in the interest of justice.” [SIC] 2. This Writ Petition is filed challenging Exts.P9 and P10 orders by which a vehicle, Tata Magic Iris auto-taxi bearing registration No.KL-03-AA-7963 was confiscated on the ground of involvement in Crime No.497/2017 of Thanithode Police Station, Pathanamthitta district. The above crime was registered under Sections 55(a) and 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act . It is alleged that the 4 th respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, Thanithode Police Station and party found the petitioner in possession of 3.180 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor at Koothadiman in Thanithode-Chittar Public Road on 27.06.2017 at 03.00 PM. According to the allegations, while the police party was patrolling the area, the auto-taxi bearing registration No.KL-03- AA-7963 was found parked by the side of the road and a person ran away from the place on seeing the police. Ext.P1 is the FIR and Ext.P2 is the seizure mahasar. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody consequent to Ext.P1 case. According to the petitioner, the petitioner's auto-taxi was called on for hire by one Biju Mathew @ Thomaskutty, who is a witness in Ext.P2, and another Byju Abraham from Karimanthode towards Chittar. The said Sri. Thomas Kutty and Biju purchased IMFL from Beverages Corporation outlet at Chittar and while returning from there to Karimanthode, the Police Party of Thanithode Police Station stopped the vehicle and conducted search. It is the case of the petitioner that, even though the passengers showed purchase bills, the police registered Ext.P1 FIR. The Petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a complaint against the then Investigating Officer as evident by Ext.P3 is the further submission. Consequent to Ext. It is the case of the petitioner that, even though the passengers showed purchase bills, the police registered Ext.P1 FIR. The Petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a complaint against the then Investigating Officer as evident by Ext.P3 is the further submission. Consequent to Ext. P3, the State Police Complaint Authority directed an enquiry to be conducted by the District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta after registering the complaint as O.P No.466/2017 is the further submission. The District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta entrusted the enquiry with Dy.SP, Adoor before whom the petitioner along with the passengers of Auto-Taxi on 27.06.2017 appeared and given statement. 3. Thereafter the State Police Complaint Authority issued notices to the petitioner on several dates for considering the report submitted by the District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta, is the further submission. The petitioner was served with a copy of the report dated 01.11.2017 of the District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta along with a covering letter/notice dated 20.11.2017 of Police Complaint Authority. It is the case of the petitioner that the District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta stated that the enquiry does not reveal that the Ext.Pl is a false case and that the final report is already filed on 30.07.2017. Exhibit P4 is the enquiry report. According to the petitioner, he was not served with the enquiry report of the Dy.SP, Adoor or the statement of witnesses along with Ext.P4. The petitioner preferred a reply statement to Ext.P4 report of District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta pointing out that the said enquiry report in nothing but one created for helping the fellow officers by suppressing the independent witness statements recorded during the enquiry. Ext. P6 is the final report. 4. In the meanwhile, the Excise Department initiated confiscation proceedings of the petitioner's vehicle and Exhibit P7 show cause notice was issued. The petitioner gave a reply as evident by Ext.P8. The 3 rd respondent proceeded to pass orders confiscating the petitioner's vehicle accepting Ext.P1 and P2 along with the report submitted by the investigating officer. Exhibit P9 is the order. The petitioner filed an appeal before the 2 nd respondent but the same was also dismissed as per Exhibit P10. The petitioner submitted that during the time when the Excise officials were conducting confiscation proceedings, the petitioner was unaware of the fact that the Dy.SP. Exhibit P9 is the order. The petitioner filed an appeal before the 2 nd respondent but the same was also dismissed as per Exhibit P10. The petitioner submitted that during the time when the Excise officials were conducting confiscation proceedings, the petitioner was unaware of the fact that the Dy.SP. Adoor in his report filed before the District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta had recommended that the complaint of the petitioner regarding false implication requires detailed investigation. The then District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta gave Ext.P4 report before the State Police Complaint Authority suppressing the actual enquiry report of Dy.SP, Adoor, is the submission. Exhibit P11 is the enquiry report of Dy.SP, Adoor along with the statement of witnesses as well as Ext.P4 obtained as per RTI from the office of the District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta. Hence, it is submitted that the confiscation proceedings are illegal. It is also submitted that now the criminal case is already disposed of acquitting the petitioner. Ext.P12 is the judgment of the trial court. The counsel also produced Exts.P13, the testimony of PW1 in the case and Ext.P14, the judgment in WP(Crl.) No.239/2021 by this Court. According to the petitioner, in the light of the subsequent events, the confiscation proceedings is unsustainable. The counsel also relied the judgment of this Court in State of Kerala and Others v. Navaru Swapna Reddy [ 2022 (1) KHC 563 ]. The petitioner relied paragraph Nos.13 to 16 of the above judgment, which is extracted hereunder: 13. We shall now deal with the rival contentions raised by the parties as to the sustainability of the order of confiscation and the order affirming the same in appeal. It can be seen from the provisions contained in Sections 65, 67B and 67C of the Act that if an offence is committed under the Act in respect of or by means of a property, the same is liable for confiscation in accordance with the procedure laid down in S.67C(1). As such, before ordering confiscation of a property, it is obligatory for the authorised officer to satisfy that an offence under the Act has been committed in respect of or by means of that property and that the property in respect of or by means of which the offence is committed under the Act is liable for confiscation. As such, before ordering confiscation of a property, it is obligatory for the authorised officer to satisfy that an offence under the Act has been committed in respect of or by means of that property and that the property in respect of or by means of which the offence is committed under the Act is liable for confiscation. The expression "whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the commission of such offence" in S.67B(2) of the Act would show that the power conferred on the authorised officer to order confiscation of property is irrespective of the fact as to whether a prosecution has been launched for the commission of the offence alleged. Similarly, the word "may" used in S.67B(2) would indicate that the power conferred on the authorised officer to order confiscation of property is discretionary inasmuch as he is not obliged to order confiscation, even if he is satisfied that an offence has been committed under the Act in respect of or by means of that property. Obviously the reason is that the power aforesaid being a harsh one, the intention of the statute is not that there shall be confiscation of property in all cases where offence is committed in respect of or by means of the property. It is all the more so since the Act provides that contravention of some of the provisions therein would be punishable with fine and some other would be punishable with both fine as well as imprisonment for long durations and uniform application of the provisions would not only work serious injustice to the parties, but also make the provisions amenable for challenge as violative of the doctrine of equality. It is now trite that where exercise of a power is dependent upon the satisfaction of certain requirements on the part of the conferee of the power, such satisfaction is to be arrived at by him not subjectively, but by applying an objective test, the standard and measure of such test being that of a reasonable person acting reasonably having regard to all the relevant facts, for the statute does not contemplate confiscation of property in every case where an offence is committed in respect of or by means of the property referred to in S.65 of the Act [See Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Maddula Ratnavalli , 2007 KHC 3556 : (2007) 6 SCC 81 : JT 2007 (6) SC 264 and Clariant International Ltd. v. Securities & Exchange Board of India, 2004 KHC 1597 : (2004) 8 SCC 524 : AIR 2004 SC 4236 : 2004 (122) Comp Cas 112 ]. Since the provisions in S.67B of the Act operate independent of S.67C, it is not to be taken that when an owner does not invoke the provision in S.67C, there should be confiscation under S.67B. If the owner invokes S.67C and he is able to show the matters mentioned therein, irrespective of whether the property could have been confiscated, no order of confiscation could be passed because of the operation of S.67C [See Sasidharan v. State of Kerala , 1980 KHC 177 : 1980 KLT 671 : 1980 KLN SN 6 and Vamadevan Pillai v. State of Kerala and Others 1982 KHC 125 : 1982 KLT 518 : 1982 KLJ 304 : ILR 1982 (2) Ker. 494 : 1982 KLN 490 ]. 14. With the aforesaid principles in mind, let us examine the correctness of the orders impugned in the writ petition. The relevant portion of Ext.P7 reads thus: "I have gone through the case records and the circumstances of the crime carefully. The Innova Cresta Car TS 07 FE 8889 was seized by the Police Party for illegal transportation of 3.3 litres of IMFL from a prohibited and protected area on which it marked as for sale in Telungana only and also a pistol with 11 cartridges. The seized liquor is permitted to sale only in the state of Telungana. The manufacture Transport and marketing of liquor in the state of Kerala is under the monopoly of State Government. No liquor from other state can be transported or used in the state of Kerala without remitting Excise Duty. In this respect no duty has been received by the state exchequer and the seized liquor should be treated as substitute beverages and hence attract section 58 of Abkari Act. More over the main offence committed by accused is that the liquor was seized from the prohibited area surrounding holy Sabarimala vide GO(P) No. 130/2017 TD and also declared as highly protected area as per GO(P) No. 133/2017 Home SRO. No 655/2017 by Government of Kerala. More over the main offence committed by accused is that the liquor was seized from the prohibited area surrounding holy Sabarimala vide GO(P) No. 130/2017 TD and also declared as highly protected area as per GO(P) No. 133/2017 Home SRO. No 655/2017 by Government of Kerala. On which the Government agencies have made vide propaganda in all South Indian languages and in English. The seizure of liquor in the prohibited area attracts S.55 of Abkari Act. It is very clear and evident that the vehicle was used for the illegal transportation of Liquor through the prohibited area.” The relevant portion of Ext.P9 reads thus: In the light of the extracted discussions, the concerned respondents cannot be found fault with for having arrived at the conclusion that offences under the Act have been committed by the accused in the case by means of the vehicle ordered to be confiscated. But, the extracted discussions do not show that the authorities have considered the question as to whether the case on hand is a case where the discretion conferred on the authorised officer to order confiscation of property under S.67B(2) is to be invoked. 15. As noted, in terms of the orders impugned in the writ petitions, a Toyota Innova Crysta worth several lakhs of rupees has been confiscated, for the husband of the petitioner and a few of his friends having allegedly carried 3.3 litres of Indian made foreign liquor in the vehicle of the petitioner. The Indian Made Foreign Liquor allegedly carried in the vehicle is a commodity available for purchase in licensed shops in almost every State in the country including the State of Kerala. As far as the State of Kerala is concerned, the only restriction concerning the possession of the same, in the absence of any notification under S.9 of the Act is that it shall not exceed the permissible quantity. The quantity of Indian Made Foreign Liquor allegedly carried in the vehicle was well within the permissible limit. This fact is not disputed. The case happened to be registered under Sections 55(a) and 58 of the Act read with Rule 9 of the Rules, since the liquor allegedly carried in the vehicle was intended for sale in the State of Telangana and the accused were found with the liquor in a prohibited area in terms of a notification under S.9 of the Act. The case happened to be registered under Sections 55(a) and 58 of the Act read with Rule 9 of the Rules, since the liquor allegedly carried in the vehicle was intended for sale in the State of Telangana and the accused were found with the liquor in a prohibited area in terms of a notification under S.9 of the Act. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, possession of Indian Made Foreign Liquor intended for sale in another State will not by itself make out the offence punishable under S.58 of the Act, unless it is shown that the possession of the liquor was with the knowledge that the same has been unlawfully imported. Likewise, merely for the reason that a person is found to be in possession of Indian Made Foreign Liquor intended for sale in another State, it cannot be concluded that he has brought the same into the State from a place outside the State. Of course, the question as to whether the accused in the case had the knowledge that the Indian Made Foreign Liquor allegedly carried by them is unlawfully imported and the question as to whether the liquor is one brought by the accused from the State of Telangana, are matters of evidence. But, the fact remains that had the Indian made foreign liquor allegedly carried in the vehicle was one purchased from the State of Kerala and had the accused in the case were found just outside the jurisdiction of Chalakkayam Excise range, a case would not have been registered for the offences alleged. The pointed question, therefore, is as to whether the authorised officer was justified in ordering the confiscation of the vehicle invoking his power under S.67B(2) of the Act in a case of this nature. 16. Kerala is not a State where sale and consumption of liquor is prohibited. S.9 of the Act confers power on the State Government to prohibit transportation of liquor from any local area into another local area by notification. The power under S.9 is being exercised by the State Government in and around religious places during festive seasons by notification prohibiting transportation of liquor to that area. One would not know normally about the notifications of this nature unless he/she belongs to the area concerned, though one is presumed in law to know about such notifications. The power under S.9 is being exercised by the State Government in and around religious places during festive seasons by notification prohibiting transportation of liquor to that area. One would not know normally about the notifications of this nature unless he/she belongs to the area concerned, though one is presumed in law to know about such notifications. It is seen that one of such notifications was issued by the State Government in connection with Sabarimala pilgrimage for the period from 12/11/2017 to 20/01/2018. Obviously, the purpose of such a notification is maintenance of tranquillity in the area since large number of pilgrims from different States gather in that place during the relevant period. Even though it is alleged in the impugned orders that boards were exhibited in the area about the notification issued under S.9, it is difficult to attribute knowledge about such notifications to persons coming from different States. Again, insofar as Indian Made Foreign Liquor is available in market in both the State of Telangana and the State of Kerala, it is difficult to attribute knowledge to people who are coming from outside the State that the liquor intended for sale in other States cannot be brought into the State of Kerala even for consumption, for the State Government has not received excise duty in respect of the same. That apart, the materials indicate that the liquor allegedly carried in the vehicle was found beneath the seat of the car and it was detected in the course of a routine inspection conducted by the Bomb Squad of the Police who were patrolling in the area. It is evident that having regard to the quantity, the liquor, if at all brought by the accused, must not have been for any commercial purpose. There were altogether five passengers in the vehicle and there is nothing on record to indicate that who among the passengers possessed the liquor, for the quantity of the liquor is such that it could be carried by one person without the knowledge of others also. There is also nothing on record to show that the liquor was carried by the husband of the petitioner or that it was carried by another with the knowledge of the husband of the petitioner. There is also nothing on record to show that the liquor was carried by the husband of the petitioner or that it was carried by another with the knowledge of the husband of the petitioner. In the aforesaid circumstances, according to us, it is a fit case where the authorised officer ought to have exercised discretion not to order confiscation of the vehicle worth several lakhs of rupees for the offences alleged to have been committed by means of the vehicle ordered to be confiscated in respect of 3.3 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor merely for the reason that it was intended for sale in another State and the vehicle happened to be in an area covered by a notification issued under S.9 of the Act, though the allegation, if proved, would make out the offences alleged. Needless to say, Exts.P7 and P9 orders are liable to be interfered with. In the result, while we hold that the view taken by the learned Single Judge that it is obligatory for the authorised officer exercising power under S.67B(2) of the Act to issue notice to the person from whom the property sought to be confiscated has been seized before ordering confiscation of the same even if he is not the owner of the property, is unsustainable in law, we allow the writ petition and quash Exts.P7 and P9 orders. The appellants are directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner forthwith.” According to the petitioner, in the light of the above dictum, the confiscation proceedings is illegal. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. This Court perused Ext.P10. A perusal of Ext.P10 would show that, Ext.P10 order is subject to the confirmation of the Excise Commissioner. This Court directed the Public Prosecutor to verify whether any further confirmation was done by the Excise Commissioner. Public Prosecutor submitted that no suo motu proceedings is initiated by the Excise Commissioner. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the Excise Commissioner has to reconsider the matter invoking the powers under Section 67(V)(F) of the Kerala Abkari Act . While deciding the matter, the Excise Commissioner will also consider the fact that the accused is acquitted and the Excise Commissioner also should consider the dictum laid down by this Court in Navaru Swapna Reddy ’s case (supra). While deciding the matter, the Excise Commissioner will also consider the fact that the accused is acquitted and the Excise Commissioner also should consider the dictum laid down by this Court in Navaru Swapna Reddy ’s case (supra). The petitioner can be allowed to file a representation before the Excise Commissioner in which the petitioner can produce all the documents, so that the Excise Commissioner can decide the matter, in accordance with law. Therefore, this Writ Petition(Crl.) is disposed of with the following directions: 1. The petitioner is free to file a representation before the 1 st respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, narrating the grievance raised in this petition along with supporting documents. 2. If such a representation is received, the 1 st respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in it, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation. 3. The Excise Commissioner shall consider the dictum laid down by this Court in Navaru Swapna Reddy ’s case (supra), while deciding the matter.