IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 672 of 2011() ----------------------------------- ST.378/2010 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, MAVELIKKARA CRIME NO.48/2010 OF NOORANADU EXCISE RANGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ANUMON, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.EBRAHIM RAVOOTHAR, BEENA BHAVAN, ATHIKKATTUKULANGARA, PALAMEL VILLAGE, NOORANADU, ALAPPUZHA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VIBHU RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE EXCISE RANGE INSPECTOR NOORANADU ALAPPUZHA DIST. THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.PIN- 682 031 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.672 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 24th day of March, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is accused in Crime NO.48 of 2010 of Nooranadu Excise Range and S.T. No. 378 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Mavelikkara facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 12A and 12B(1) read with Section 63 of the Abkari Act, Rule 6(3) of the Kerala Spirituous Preparations (Control) Rules and Section 7(9) (c) of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duty) Act. Petitioner challenges the proceeding on two grounds, firstly; that allegations levelled against petitioner would not constitute any offence as alleged and secondly; that search conducted by the Excise Officials is not in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel submitted that on the above grounds proceeding against petitioner may be quashed. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that all relevant materials are not furnished by the petitioner in the petition and that the alleged non- compliance with the statutory provision regarding search if any is CRL.M.C. No672 of 2011 -: 2 :- not a ground to quash proceeding. 2. As the learned counsel submits particulars of the offence has not been read over to the petitioner. In that situation it is open to the petitioner to raise appropriate plea/defence before the learned Magistrate. There is no reason why this Court should interfere on the allegations made in this petition at this stage. Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of making it clear that it is open to the petitioner to raise appropriate plea/defence before the learned Magistrate at the appropriate time. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv