IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 141 of 2008() ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.2 --------------------------- SOMAN, S/O. KUNJUNJU, MALOOR HOUSE, THOTTAPUZHASSERI VILLAGE, KURIYANNUR P.O., THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEWS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. EXCISE INSPECTOR, RANNY. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LISHA M.G. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 141 of 2008() PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-1 : COPY OF THE LICENSE OF TODDY SHOP BEARING T.S.NO.3/2007-08 AT CHUZHANA OF RANNY EXCISE RANGE. ANNEXURE-2 COPY OF THE CRIME AND OCCURRENCE REPORT. ANNEXURE -3 COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR. ANNEXURE-4 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3.12.07 SENT BY R3 TO THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE-5 COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE R3 BEFORE THE JFMC RANNY. ANNEXURE-6 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.XA7-32971/07 DTD.27.12.07 PASSED BY R2. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE CL K. HARILAL,J. ................................................. CRL.M.C.NO.141 OF 2008 ..................................................... Dated this the 25th day of November, 2011. O R D E R The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.57/2007 of Ranny Excise Range registered by Excise Inspector, Ranny Excise Range. He is charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 8 (1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. He was made an accused on the basis of a further report filed by the excise officials. The prayer in the Crl.M.C is to quash Annexure 2 - occurrence report, Annexure 3 - Mahazer and Annexure 5 - report. 2. Having regard to the scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in view of the legal position settled by R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 (SC) 866) and subsequent plethoric decisions upto 2011, I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482, when there is specific provision providing remedy in Cr.P.C. Therefore, the Crl.M.C is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies under the Criminal Procedure Code. K.HARILAL, JUDGE. cl