IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011 / 1ST ASWINA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2095 of 2011() ------------------------------ SC.65/2010 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONER / COMPLAINANT : ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT / ACCUSED : ---------------------- MUDDU @ MADHUSOODHANAN, MASTHIKUNDU, EDANEER,CHOORIMOOLA,MULIYAR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, PIN - 671 121. BY THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl. R.P No.2095 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September 2011 ORDER Challenge in the revision is against the order passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kasaragod, discharging the respondent who was proceeded for the offence under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act on a report filed by the Assistant Excise Inspector, Kasaragod. The Assistant Excise Inspector who laid the report before the court had no competency to do so was the reason which prompted the learned Assistant Sessions Judge to order for discharge of the accused. Concededly the notification issued by the Government conferring authority on the Assistant Excise Inspectors to investigate and lay charge over offences covered by Sections 40 to 53 of the Abkari Act was issued, much later to the filing of report before the court. The learned Public Prosecutor in such circumstance fairly submitted that no sustainable legal ground can be canvassed for to assail the order of discharge. I find, the revision is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge Crl. R.P No.2095/2011 - 2 -