IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2011 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 826 of 2011() ------------------------------------ (CR.NO.07/2011 OF EXCISE RANGE, KOLLAM) ....... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- BHASKARAN PILLAI, ANIL BHAVAN, PERINAD, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER, SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER. RESPONDENT(S): STATE: -------------------------------------- 1. EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KOLLAM-691 001. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-682 031. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.826 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 04th day of April, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner, it is stated is an employee in one of the retail outlets of the manufacture of the materials allegedly seized by the Excise Officials in Crime No.70 of 2011 of Excise Range Office, Kollam. According to the petitioner no offence under Rule 10(1) of the Kerala Kerala Spirituous Preparations (Control) Rules, 1969 (for short, “the Rules) or Section 63 of the Abkari Act is made out and hence the crime and occurrence report is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel contended that as per Rule 10 of the Rules the interdict is against any person possessing any spirituous preparation except under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence or permit issued under the Rules and in excess of the quantity entered in such permits or licence. It is contended that the manufacturer is having a licence for preparation of the articles seized and that at any rate it could only be said that as per Rule 17 (1) of the Rules the authority mentioned therein can impose penalty or other liability as stated therein. No prosecution as in the present case could be initiated, it is contended. It is also CRL.M.C. No.826 of 2011 -: 2 :- contended that sub-rule (3) of Rule 17 cannot apply in this case since even as per the preamble to the Act it is specifically made clear that the Act is intended to consolidate and amend the law relating to import, export, transport, manufacture, sale and possession of “intoxicating liquor and intoxicating drugs” in the State of Kerala. Learned counsel has invited my attention to Rule 3(l) of the Rules and the Note attached to the said Rule to contend that there is no case for the Excise Officials that there is any alcoholic content beyond permissible limit so that any offence under Sec.63 of the Act could be said to be committed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the sample collected has already been sent to the laboratory for examination and test result is awaited. 2. Having regard to the contentions raised and since the test report on the sample (allegedly) collected from the shop in question is awaited it is premature to say at this stage that no offence is involved. Hence the request to quash proceeding cannot be allowed at this stage. But I make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to challenge the final report if any filed against him if according to the petitioner such final report does not disclose any offence and the report of chemical examination does CRL.M.C. No.826 of 2011 -: 3 :- not reveal that there is violation of the Act or the Rules as alleged by the Excise Officials. With the above observation this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is closed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv