IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7168 of 2008(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ BHAVANI AMMA,AGE 65 YEARS, W/O.VELAPPAN, THANIKKAL, PULIYAPPILLIL HOUSE KALLOORKADU PIN 686 668 MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. SRI.RAVI,S/O.KRISHNAN KARIMALA PUTHANPURAYIL, KALLOORKADU PIN 686 668 MUVATTUPUZHA. 4. SMT.ANNAKKUTTY KALAMBUKATTU, KALLOORKADU PIN 686 668, MUVATTUPUZHA. R1 BY SR GP SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN. R2 BY SC SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.7164 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner is named in Ext.P1 registered before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Pathanamthitta by the Excise Inspector, Pathanamthitta range with reference to Sections 8 (1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. The contents of Ext.P1 is that the person named therein was carrying some material, however that, the excise party could not apprehend him and that the person referred to therein is at large, though the materials have been seized, on the basis of which investigation is on. 2. The complaint of the petitioner is that he has absolutely no criminal antecedents and had never been involved in not only any offence, but also in any transaction relating to liquor. He WPC7164/2008 -:2:- appears to have a version of defence, which I do not deem it appropriate to state now in this judgment. 3. Petitioner's wife is shown to have made certain complaints that the case has been foisted on the petitioner and that the whole exercise is mala fide and otherwise tainted. 4. Abkari officer, as defined in Section 3(2) of the Abkari Act, includes the Commissioner of Excise or any officer or any person invested with the powers under Sections 4 or 5 of the Abkari Act. Therefore, if the complaint of the petitioner or his wife is in relation to the identity of the officers involved in carrying on the investigation, such complaint can be adequately attended to within the framework of the Abkari Act by such superior officers who could discharge such powers. WPC7164/2008 -:3:- 5. Hence, it is directed that the complaint made by the petitioner's wife, namely Ext.P2, acknowledged as per Ext.P4, shall be considered by the second respondent. A decision shall be taken thereon within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is further directed that a final report regarding the case shall not be filed before the second respondent takes a decision, as stated above. It is also clarified that this judgment does not express either way regarding the decision that has to be taken by the second respondent. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.