IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 533 of 2011() ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- CHANDRABABU @ BABU, S/O.DIVAKARAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S.N.VILASAM, KARAKKADU MURI, MULAKUZHA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.533 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused in Crime No.61 of 2010 of Chengannur Excise Range Office. It is alleged that on 01.12.2010 at about 6.45 p.m. petitioner was found carrying 2.250 litres of liquor in the box of a cycle which he was riding. On seeing the Excise party petitioner ran away leaving behind the cycle. Excise party examined the liquid in the bottles and registered a case against petitioner for offence punishable under Section 58 of the Abkari Act (for short, “the Act”). That crime and occurrence report is sought to be quashed in this proceeding. Learned counsel submitted that even as per Annexure-A(2), mahazar prepared by the Excise Officials what was seized is Indian Made Foreign Liquor (for short, “the IMFL”) and that as per notification, SRO No.127/1999 which was in force during the relevant time petitioner was entitled to possess IMFL upto three litres and hence no offence is made out. At any rate, offence allegedly committed by petitioner is only under Section 63 of the Act which is compoundable. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. In Annexure-A, crime and occurrence report it is stated that petitioner was found in possession of 2.250 litres of illicit liquor being transported in the box of the cycle. I have gone through Annexure-A(2), mahazar where it is Crl.MC No.533/2011 2 stated that Detecting Officer identified the liquor by tasting and smelling and it was found to be IMFL. It is stated in the mahazar that on examination of the bottles, none of it contained security labels, sticker, etc. of the Kerala State Beverages Corporation (for short, “the Corporation”) and that the seal on the lid of the bottles were seen broken. For the said reason, the Detecting Officer registered case against petitioner for alleged possession of illicit liquor. 3. The Notification and the decision in Nobbey and another v. State of Kerala and others (2011 (1) KLD 11) relied on by the learned counsel refers to purchase of IMFL from the Corporation or from any of its authorized outlets. It is true that at one portion of Annexure-A(2), mahazar what is stated is that the article seized is IMFL. But it is also stated that the lid of bottles were not intact, seals were found broken and that there was no indication that it was purchased from the Corporation or from any of its authorized outlets. The case is now under investigation. It is premature to make any conclusion at this stage either way whether the liquor seized is illicit liquor or was purchased from the Corporation or from any of its authorized outlets. If that be so, it is not possible to quash proceeding at this stage or say that only an offence punishable under Section 63 of the Act is made out. These matters primarily depend on the result of investigation. 4. However, considering the difficulties expressed by learned counsel Crl.MC No.533/2011 3 the Investigating Officer is directed to expedite investigation and submit final report. Petition is disposed of with the above direction. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks