IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 16TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2146 of 2008(E) ------------------------- CR NO.29/07 OF IDUKKI EXCISE RANGE -------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHIBU NARAYANAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, NELLIKKAL HOUSE, MELUKAVUMATTOM P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, IDUKKI EXCISE RANGE, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- W.P.C.No.2146 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February 2008 J U D G M E N T Against the petitioner, Ext.P2 crime and occurrence report has been registered. He apprehends further action being taken against him in pursuance of Ext.P2 crime and occurrence report. In the said crime and occurrence report, it is alleged that the petitioner had kept for sale in his premises toddy which does not conform to the standards prescribed for toddy under the amended Rule 9(2) and Rule 2(n) read with Notification Ext.P5. 2. The petitioner first of all raises a contention that amendment to Rules 2(n) and 9(2) are ultra vires Section 3(8) and Section 29 of the Kerala Abkari Act. He further contends that Ext.P5 notification is ultra vires the Kerala Abkari Act. These contentions have been dealt with in detail and it has already been held that amendment to Rules 2(n) and 9(2) as also subsequent notification are valid as per the decision in Komalan v. State of Kerala [2008(1) KLT 340]. The said contention cannot, in these circumstances, succeed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner then contends that while taking the sample, the stipulations of Rule 8 have not W.P.C.No.2146/08 2 been followed. What is the non-compliance? It is contended that the requisite quantity of benzoic acid has not been added to the sample of toddy allegedly seized from the premises of the petitioner. This is certainly not a contention that this court can consider, entertain and answer at the present stage. That certainly is a contention which the petitioner will have to raise in the course of trial, if ultimately he is compelled to face trial. At the moment and with the available inputs, this court cannot attempt to resolve the controversy as to whether the samplings has been done in conformity with the stipulations of Rule 8. The said contention cannot also help the petitioner now. No other contentions are raised. I am satisfied that this writ petition in these circumstances only deserves to be dismissed. 4. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this writ petition will not in anyway fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all appropriate and relevant contentions in the course of the trial, if the petitioner ultimately has to stand for trial for the alleged crime. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.2146/08 3 W.P.C.No.2146/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007