IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1815 of 2009() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/2/09 IN CRMP 108/2008 IN SC.285/2006 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: 2ND ACCUSED ---------------------------------------- JOSE GEORGE, S/O. GEORGE, CHERUKARA HOUSE, KARIMKUNNAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. MR.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT RESPONDENTS: COUNTER PETITIONER -------------------------------------------- 1. EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, IDUKKI. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1815 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 03rd day of July 2009 ORDER This revision is in challenge of order dated 28-02-2009 on C.M.P.No.108 of 2008 in C.C.No.285 of 2006 of the court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha. Petitioner (accused No.2) along with others are chargesheeted for offences punishable under Sec.55(a) and (i) and 56(b) of the Abkari Act (for short, “the Act”), allegations being that on 14-12-2004 petitioner and others conducted sale of toddy in a temporary shed in the property of one Sabu, also in violation of the license issued to the petitioner during the relevant time. Petitioner contended that at any rate the offence attributed to him is only under Sec.56(b) of the Act and hence charge against him has to be seperated from the charge against other accused persons under Sec55(a) and (i) of the Act. He also pleaded that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against him. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge repelled the contention and refused to discharge the petitioner. It is contended by learned counsel that petitioner is not involved in the offence punishable under Section 55(a) and (i) of the Act, offence punishable under section 56(b) of the Act is not exclusively triable by the court of Session and that there is no sufficient materials to frame charge against the petitioner. Learned counsel pleaded that petitioner may be discharged and at any rate, ordered to be seperately tried for Crl.R.P.No.1815 of 2009 2 the office punishable under section 56 of the Act in the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class. 2. Now what is required to be consider is only whether charge against petitioner is groundless. I have gone through the C.D file produced by learned Public Prosecutor. Case is that petitioner was licensee of a toddy shop during the year, 2004-05 but in violation of the terms and conditions of the license he sold toddy elsewhere with the assistance of other accused persons. The C.D file contains statements of the witnesses Raju, who was a tapper of the toddy shop, Excise Inspector and Preventive Officer which are to the effect that unauthorized sale was carried on with the assistance or connivance of petitioner also. There are materials to show, prima facie that petitioner thus possessed toddy for sale and by engaging in sale outside the permitted limits committed breach of the conditions of the license. Hence the contention that petitioner cannot be said to have committed the offence under Sec.55(a) and (i) of the Act and hence at any rate he has to be separately tried for the offence under Sec.56(b) of the Act cannot stand. From the material on record I am unable to say that the charge against petitioner is groundless and hence he should be discharged. There is no merrit in the revision. Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/