IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2008 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 OP.No. 34932 of 2001(H) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHANDRA MOHAN, KUCHUPUTHUVEL HOUSE, AMBALATHARA, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. EXCISE INSPECTOR, THIRUPURAM RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJIRAMKULAM POLICE STATION. 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BALARAMAPURAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO 4 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/12/2008, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 34932/2001. ---------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE ABSTRACT COPY OF PAGES 1, 3 & 5 OF FINAL REPORT FILED IN C.C.608/2000. EXT.P2 CRIME AND OCCURRENCE REPORT FILED IN C.C. 185/2001. EXT.P3 PAGES 1, 3 AND 5 OF FINAL REPORT IN C.C.NO. 187/2001. EXT.P4 CHARGE IN CRIME 47/99 NUMBERED AS C.C.267/2000. EXT.P5 CHARGE IN CRIME NO. 48/99 OF KANJIRMKULAM POLICE STATION NUMBERED AS S.C.1004/01. EXT.P6 CHARGE IN CRIME NO. 90/99 OF BALARAMAPURAM NOW NUMBERED AS S.C.151/2001. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 34932 of 2001 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 18th December, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is challenging Exts.P1 to P6 proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.Nos. 608/2000, 185/2001, 187/2001 and 267/2000 on the files of the Judicial I Class Magistrate's Court-II Neyyattinkara and S.C.Nos. 1004/2001 and S.C.No. 151/2001 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara in Thiruvananthapuram district. The allegations against the petitioner in all those cases is that on analysis of the samples of toddy taken from the petitioner's toddy shop, they contained ethyl alcohol in excess of the quantity prescribed. Prior to the introduction of the Rules of 2002, there was no stipulation in the Rules as to the limit of ethyl alcohol which toddy can contain. The limits were prescribed in Rule 9 (2) of the Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 2002. The validity of that Rule itself was under challenge in a batch of writ petitions in which this Court upheld the validity of Rule 9(2). However, in appeal before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court in the decision of State of Kerala v. Unni, 2007(1) KLT 151 (SC) 151, reversed the same and held that Rule 9(2) of the Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 2002 is unworkable, vague and unreasonable and no prosecution would lie on the basis of that Rule. In the impugned proceedings, there is no allegation that the petitioner is guilty of mixing toddy with ethyl alcohol. The only finding is that O.P. No. 34932/2001 -: 2 :- the toddy sample contained ethyl alcohol in excess of the prescribed limit. In view of the decision in Unni's case (supra), I am satisfied that the prosecutions are not sustainable. Accordingly, the original petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are quashed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/