IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010 / 1ST POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4858 of 2010() --------------------------------------- (CR.NO.36/2010 OF EXCISE INSPECTOR, THRISSUR RANGE) ... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. SURESH KUMAR, S/O. NARAYANAN, PALACKAL HOUSE, ANTHINADU.P.O, BHARANANGANAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. KISHORE, S/O. SHAJI, THECHERIL HOUSE, PUTHENVELIKKARA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. RAVI, S/O. KUNJAPPAN, KARANATHU HOUSE, MENALUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KARAMUKKU VILLAGE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.JAI GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2010 ALONG WITH CRMC.NO.4994 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. ------------------------------- Crl.M.C.Nos.4858 & 4994 of 2010 ------------------------------- COMMON ORDER Petitioners, the accused in C.R.Nos.36/2010 and 41/2010 of Excise Range, Thrissur, filed these petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the prosecution contending that though Division Bench of this Court upheld the maximum percentage of ethyl alcohol present in toddy as provided under the Rules, Honourable Supreme Court in Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)Nos.14353- 14365/2010 stayed the prosecution in respect of those cases for violation of the Rule prescribing maximum percentage of ethyl alcohol content in toddy. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that prosecution has been lodged based on the Division Bench decision of this Court, upholding the maximum percentage of ethyl alcohol content prescribed under the Rules and as Honourable Supreme court had stayed the prosecution in Petitions CRMC 4858&4994/10 2 for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)Nos.14353- 14365/2010, prosecution in this case is either to be quashed or stayed. 4. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, Division Bench decision has not been overruled or even stayed by the Honourable Supreme Court and it still holds the field. It is binding on this Court. Hence, the cases cannot be quashed as sought for. Honourable Supreme Court stayed only the prosecution of those accused in those cases and there is no general stay of prosecution. In such circumstances, petitioners are not entitled to get an order to quash the proceedings or to stay the prosecution. Petitions are dismissed. 22nd December, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv