IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4298 of 2010() ------------------------- SC.1621/2001 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): A4: ------------------------------ THANKAPPAN NAIR, S/O. SADASHIVAN PILLAI, SHALINI BHAVAN, PUTHIYATHURA, KARAKULOM VILLAGE, KARAKULAM DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE: ---------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOVAR CIRCLE, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4298 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the fourth accused in Crime No. 48/1999 of Kanjiramkulam Police Station, registered under Section 55(a) of Abkari Act, now pending as S.C.No.1621/2001 before Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track-III), Thiruvananthapuram. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken contending that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Unni (2007 (1) KLT 151), based on Annexure-B Certificate of Chemical Analysis, petitioner cannot be prosecuted and therefore, the case is to be quashed. Petitioner relied on Annexure-C judgment of this Court in O.P.No. 4365/2002 and Annexure-D judgment in O.P.No. 34932/2001. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. CRMC 4298/10 2 3. In Annexure-D judgment, relying on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Unni's case (supra), it was held that Rule 9(2) of Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 2002 is unworkable, vague and unreasonable and no prosecution will lie on the basis of that Rule. Finding that there is no allegation that petitioner therein was guilty of mixing toddy with ethyl alcohol, the proceedings against the petitioner was quashed. In Annexure-C judgment, this Court quashed the proceedings based on the final report holding that a violation referable to the statutory provisions alone would be sustainable and therefore, petitioners cannot be prosecuted based on the impugned final report. 4. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public prosecutor, facts are different in this case. Annexure-B Certificate of Chemical Analysis shows not only percentage of ethyl alcohol at 15.67 by volume, but that toddy contained added alcohol. CRMC 4298/10 3 Therefore, based on Unni's decision (supra), the case cannot be quashed as sought for. Petition is dismissed. 23rd November, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv