IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4588 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO.304/08 OF THIRUVALLAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- SANTHOSH KUMAR, ATTILPUTHUVAL VEEDU, G.V.RAJA ROAD, KOVALAM. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4588 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of November 2008 O R D E R The petitioner has come to this court with the prayer that an F.I.R registered against him inter alia under Section 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act may be quashed. 2. The petitioner is the licensee of a restaurant. Huge quantity of I.M.F.L allegedly licit, in the sense that they contained security stickers of the Beverages Corporation, was allegedly seized from his premises. He has a case that it was not stored for sale and that the same was kept in the fridge to oblige the occupants who had brought these articles to the restaurant. It is submitted that, in these circumstances, Section 55(i) will not be attracted and the F.I.R deserves to be quashed. 3. I am afraid that at the moment that defence cannot be accepted and a conclusion cannot safely be reached that no offence under Section 55(i) is revealed. I intend to express no final opinion on the sustainability of the allegation; but I emphatically hold that there is no reason to interfere with the investigation which has already commenced. Investigation will Crl.M.C.No.4588/08 2 have to be conducted and it will have to be ascertained whether the storage was for sale which is culpable under Section 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act. I am not adverting to other controversies raised. I am not persuaded to agree that the F.I.R registered deserves to be quashed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to surrender before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail. The petitioner needs no permission of this court to surrender before the learned Magistrate or the investigating officer. He can choose to surrender before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate and apply for bail and if application for bail is filed, needless to say, the same will have to be considered on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. 5. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.4588/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.4588/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008