IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 1140 of 2007() ----------------------------- C.R.NO. 12/2007 of KANJIRAPPALLY EXCISE RANGE PETITIONER: -------------- SAJI EAPEN, 41 YEARS. S/O.EAPEN. ELAVUNKAL HOUSE, PUTHEN CHANTHA, ERUMELY VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, (FOR THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, KANJIRAPPALLY- CR NO.12/2007 OF EXCISE RANGE,KANJIRAPPALLY). BY ADV. SRI. PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No. 1140 of 2007 ========================== Dated this the 28th day of February, 2008. O R D E R The petitioner, who is the accused in C.R.No. 12 of 2007 of Kanjirappally Excise Range registered for an offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act for having been found in possession 40.5 litres of IMFL in his house without licence for the purpose of sale, seeks to quash Annexure A-I occurrence report. According to the petitioner, the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act as alleged against him is not maintainable since the case of the petitioner is covered by the decision in Mohanan v. State of Kerala (2007(1) KLT 845) and Surendran v. Excise Inspector (2004 (1) KLT 404). While admitting this Crl.M.C, this Court had passed an interim direction against the filing of the final report in the matter. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that it is on account of the said direction that the Investigating Officer is unable to file the final report before the court. The case of the prosecution is not founded fully on Annexure A1 occurrence CRL.M.C. NO. 1140/2007 :2: report. The case of the prosecution will be revealed only when the final report is filed after investigation. I see no justification to fetter the hands of the Investigating Officer in filing the final report. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the final report, he can have recourse to law by approaching appropriate forum. Reserving this right of the petitioner, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.M.C. NO. 1140/2007 :3: