IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 18TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1779 of 2008 -------------------------------- (FIR NO.412/2008 OF THOPPUMPADY POLICE STATION) ........................................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------------- KISHORE, S/O. LATE A.K.RAMAN, LICENSEE, HOTEL OCEAN KING, THOPPUMPADY. BY ADV. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THOPPUMPADY POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.1779 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated 9th September 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in crime No.412/2008 of Thoppumpady police station registered under Annexure-A FIR for the offence under Section 55(i) of Kerala Abkari Act. Prosecution case is that on 26/4/2008 first accused, the security personal of the petitioner, who is second accused, the licensee conducted sale of the foreign liquor, after the permitted time at about 0.25 a.m and thereby committed offence under Section 55(i) of Abkari Act. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR contending that even if the allegation is accepted, an offence under Section 55(i) is not attracted, as it would only amount to violation of condition No.20 of Annexure-B license and at best, it may attract an offence under Section 56 of Abkari Act. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. CRMC 1779/09 2 3. Petitioner has produced Annexure-C judgment in O.P.3379/1999, whereunder, in a similar case this court, though dismissed the original petition holding that the offence attracted is only under Section 56 of the Abkari Act. Learned counsel relied on the decision of this court in Mohanan v. State of Kerala (2007 (1) KLT 845) and argued that in any case, offence under Section 55(i) of Abkari Act is not attracted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that final report has already been submitted. But, learned Public Prosecutor could not throw light, whether, the final report is for an offence under Section 56 or 55(i) of Abkari Act. 5. Allegation in Annexure-A FIR is only that in violation of the conditions of the license, through the security personal, petitioner the licensee, sold liquor after the prescribed hour during mid night. Even if, that case is accepted, it would not attract an offence under Section 55(a) or 55 (i) of Abkari Act. Offence attracted would only be one under Section 56 of Abkari Act. Therefore, petition is disposed quashing the offence under CRMC 1779/09 3 Section 55(i) of Abkari Act making clear that it will not affect the investigation or final report submitted for an offence under Section 56 of Abkari Act. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.