Vehicle confiscation under Abkari law requires proof of owner's knowledge or connivance, not mere use in the offence.

Confiscation of a vehicle under the Kerala Abkari Act depends on more than proof of its use in an offence: the authority must be satisfied that the use occurred with the owner's knowledge or connivance, or without reasonable precautions by the owner. Section 67C(2) places a positive burden on the owner to rebut that inference, and a bare denial is insufficient. On the stated facts, the owner's lack of complicity was treated as probable, supported by the small quantity involved, the driver's acquittal, and other surrounding circumstances, so the confiscation order was unsustainable and release of the security was directed.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the vehicle under Section 67B of the Kerala Abkari Act was sustainable when the owner claimed absence of knowledge or complicity, and whether the owner had discharged the burden under Section 67C(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act.

Analysis: Section 67C(2) casts a positive burden on the owner to show that the vehicle was not used for the offence with his knowledge or connivance and that reasonable precautions were taken. A mere passive denial is not enough. At the same time, confiscation cannot follow automatically merely because the vehicle was used in the offence; the authority must be satisfied on the relevant circumstances that the statutory conditions for confiscation are met. On the facts, the vehicle belonged to a person from another State, the quantity involved was small, the driver had been acquitted, and the surrounding circumstances made the owner's complicity improbable.

Conclusion: The owner was held to have discharged the burden under Section 67C(2), and the confiscation order was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation was set aside and the vehicle-related security was directed to be released.

Ratio Decidendi: Confiscation of a vehicle under the Abkari law requires more than proof that the vehicle was used in the offence; the authority must be satisfied that the use was with the owner's knowledge or connivance, or without the owner taking reasonable precautions, even though the owner bears the burden of proving the contrary.

---