IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3893 of 2009() ------------------------- CRIME NO. 20/2009 OF KASARAGOD EXCISE RANGE PETITIONER/ ACCUSED ---------------------- SHARMILA, W/O.VISWANATHAN, NARASANNA COLONY, NAVODAYA NAGAR, MEENCHA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADV. MR.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- 1. EXCISE INSPECTOR, KUMBALA EXCISE RANGE. 2. STATE REP; BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: KCR M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3893 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009 ORDER Petitioner was found in possession of 60 bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor containing 180 ml. each being carried in a sack on 24.7.2009. She was arrested and the Indian Made Foreign Liquor were seized and Crime 20/2009 for the offence under Section 55(a) of Abkari Act is registered. Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-I the occurrence report contending that the bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor seized do not contain any Hall mark of Karnataka State Excise Department or KSBC and based on the label declaration alone, petitioner cannot be prosecuted. It is also contended that if at all, petitioner could only be prosecuted for the offence under Section 63 of the Act. 2. When the case is under investigation, at this stage it is not possible to say that the offence under Section 63 alone will lie for the reason that Indian Made Foreign Liquor was seized from the petitioner does not carry the Hall mark. For that reason it cannot be said that it was not an Indian Made Foreign Liquor to be sold in Karnataka State as the label shows that it is to be sold only within Karanataka State. In such circumstances, the occurrence report cannot be quashed as sought for. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner then submitted if when the petitioner surrenders, learned Magistrate may be directed to consider the application for bail on the same day. When an accused surrenders Magistrate is expected to pass orders in the application for bail without delay. Considering all the contentions raised by the petitioner, I find no reason to believe that the Magistrate is unaware of the provisions of law or the decisions of this court or that Magistrate will not act in accordance with law. Hence no direction is warranted. Petition is disposed of as above. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE cms