IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1819 of 2011() ----------------------------------------- (OR.NO.55/2010 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA) ..... PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------ RAMAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, EDAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VARANDARAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN, SMT.P.R.REENA. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001. 2. EXCISE RANGE OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PIN-680 121. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PIN-682 011. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss CRMC.NO.1819/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX.1: COPY OF THE OCCURRENCE REPORT IN CR.NO.55/2010 OF IRINJALAKUDA EXCISE RANGE. ANNEX.II: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 09/02/2011 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEX.III: COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2011 KHC SN II DTD. 3/12/10. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.1819 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 17th day of June, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the second accused in O.R. No.55 of 2010 of Excise Range Office, Irinjalakuda for alleged violation of Rule 10 (1)(c) of the Kerala Spirituous Preparations Control Rules, 1969. According to the petitioner, ayurvedic medicine was seized from the provision shop of one Philomina. Petitioner is falsely implicated in the case though he has no connection with the said shop. Petitioner made a request to the Officer authorised under Section 67A of the Abkari Act (for short, “the Act”) to compound the offence (Annexure-II is the petition) but there was no response from the Officer concerned. Petitioner filed W.P(C) No.14223 of 2011 for a direction to the said authority to compound the offence. It is stated that the said Writ Petition was disposed of with the observation that proper remedy is to file a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly petitioner has filed this petition. Learned counsel has invited my attention to the decision of this Court in Nobbey and Another v. State of Kerala and Others (2011 [1] KHC SN 11) in support of CRL.M.C. No.1819 of 2011 -: 2 :- his case. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. No direction as prayed for can be given to the Officer authorised under Sec.67A of the Act to compound the offence. Petitioner may have the right to request the Officer concerned to compound the offence and the Officer concerned has authority, having regard to various facts and circumstances to allow the request or not as is indicated by the expression “may accept” (in Sec.67A of the Act) from the person referred therein by way of composition for the offence which could have been committed by such persons. But If Annexure-II, petition has not been disposed of, it has to be disposed of as provided under law. Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of directing the first respondent to dispose of Annexure-II, petition (if he has received it) as early as possible, as provided under law. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv