Judgment :- 1. Petitioners, 3 in number, seek anticipatory bail since they fear arrest on the allegation that they committed offence u/s.57 A of the Abkari Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The allegations made against them in short are as follows:-- Petitioners 1 and 2 were abkari contractors for arrack shops bearing Nos.20 to 30 at Neeleswaram Range. Third petitioner was the manager of the godown. Three samples were taken from the arrack godown 21/87-88 on 11-8-1987. Samples were sent to Chemical Examiner, Government Regional Office at Calicut for analysis. The report received by the Circle Inspector of Excise on 26-2-1988 shows that one sample contained methyl alcohol and other two samples had lesser content of alcohol. Thereupon notice was issued calling upon them to show cause why action including that for cancellation of the licence should not be initiated. Petitioners filed their objections. It is alleged that petitioners 1 and 3 agreed to have the offences relating to the sample being of less or strength compounded. They did not state any thing regarding the presence of methyl alcohol in the sample. As per legal opinion given by Asst. Public Prosecutor offence under S.56(b) alone cannot be compounded since petitioners are found to have committed offences u/ss.56(b) and 57A (3) of the Act. 3. As stated earlier, the sample was taken on 11-8-1987. Circle Inspector of Excise got the Chemical Analyst's report regarding the sample on 26-2-1988. In the affidavit filed by the Circle Inspector of Excise, Hosdurg it is averred that a case was registered as crime 100/88 u/s.56(b) and 57A(3) of the Act against the contractors and godown manager on 27-2-1988. It is also stated that an occurrence report in the case was sent to the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Hosdurg on the same day. No further action for the prosecution of the petitioners was taken by him till date. In the affidavit it is stated that he was asking for sanction from his superiors including the Board of Revenue (Excise) to prosecute the licensees. No sanction from the higher-ups was received till date. It is also stated that petitioners are hot entitled to bail in view of the provision contained in S.57A(4) of the Act. 4. In the affidavit it is stated that he was asking for sanction from his superiors including the Board of Revenue (Excise) to prosecute the licensees. No sanction from the higher-ups was received till date. It is also stated that petitioners are hot entitled to bail in view of the provision contained in S.57A(4) of the Act. 4. No provision in the Abkari Act was placed before me by the learned Public Prosecutor which enjoins upon the Circle Inspector of Excise to get sanction from his superior officers or the Board of Revenue (Excise) for initiating prosecution before criminal court against offenders under the Act. Learned Public Prosecutor placed before me the Excise Manual to contend that Excise Inspector should take sanction from the higher officials to initiate prosecution against the offenders. The manual placed before me is not shown to have been issued under the provisions of any statute. The manual contains administrative instructions issued by the Department for the guidance of its subordinate officials. Those instructions in the manual cannot over-ride the provisions of the Abkari Act. When Abkari Act does not contemplate sanction from higher authorities the Circle Inspector of Excise who is alleged to have detected the offence and is competent to initiate prosecution ought to have prosecuted the petitioners. The learned Public Prosecutor has no case that an Excise Inspector is not competent to prosecute those who violate the provisions of the Act. In this case the Excise Inspector has not initiated prosecution prima facie in an attempt to have the offence compounded. So the action of the Circle Inspector of Excise, Hosdurg in not initiating prosecution proceedings against the petitioners for offence u/s. 57A of the Act on the ground that he did not get the sanction from the higher authorities is untenable. 5. In Para.13 of the affidavit filed by the Circle Inspector of Excise it is averred that on 14-6-1989 the second petitioner appeared before him and stated that he was not involved in the business of arrack except giving a solvency certificate and power of attorney to his son, the first petitioner. When this fact was communicated to his superior officer, the Asst.Excise Commissioner, that officer directed to get, the opinion of the Government Pleader to absolve the second petitioner from the case. When this fact was communicated to his superior officer, the Asst.Excise Commissioner, that officer directed to get, the opinion of the Government Pleader to absolve the second petitioner from the case. Accordingly the Excise Inspector got advice from the Government Pleader to delete the second petitioner from the array of parties and to cite him as a witness in the proceedings. Thus even on the respondent's own showing second petitioner is not liable for any offence under the Act. 6. Petitioners 1 and 3 have never accepted their liability for offence u/s.57A of the Act. They stated that they are prepared to have the offence levelled against them for storing arrack with lesser strength compounded. They have not in any way conceded their liability for mixing methyl alcohol with arrack. S.57A(1) makes it an offence to mix any noxious substance or any substance which is likely to endanger human life or to cause grievous hurt to human beings, with any liquor or intoxicating drug. The allegation made against the petitioners 1 and 3 is that in one sample methyl alcohol could be detected on chemical analysis. The sample which was taken from the stock was analysed after a lapse of more than 6 months. During that period the entire stock was sold out. In the case of liquor mixed with noxious substance six months delay in analysis is criminal. When the Excise authorities suspect the arrack to be mixed with noxious substances that must be analysed at the earliest opportunity without any lapse of time. Otherwise the entire stock will be sold out. Poor customers will become victims of that adulterated liquor. Excise Authorities should have means to have the sample analysed, if possible, within 24 hours. During that period the stock should not be allowed to be sold. Otherwise large number of human lives will be lost or large number of persons will be permanently affected by consuming such adulterated liquor. The case on hand shows that on account of the delay in detecting the methyl alcohol, the stock which contained methyl alcohol happened to be sold to customers. By providence and by God's grace none was affected by consuming that quantity. May be they might have become immune to small quantities of methyl alcohol on account of the continued use of such doses daily. By providence and by God's grace none was affected by consuming that quantity. May be they might have become immune to small quantities of methyl alcohol on account of the continued use of such doses daily. It will also go to establish the lack of supervision by the Excise authorities over the liquor that is being sold through licenced outlets. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor brought to my notice the provision contained in S.57A(4) of the Act to contend that petitioners should not be granted anticipatory bail. That clause applies to persons accused of the offence under sub-section (1) of the Section who are in custody. Since petitioners 1 to 3 are not in custody and they seek anticipatory bail the provision contained in that clause cannot be pressed into service as against them. 8. On going through the averments in the petition and the affidavit filed by the Circle Inspector of Excise, Hosdurg it appears that the officers of the Excise Department are more interested in getting the offence compounded than in prosecuting the offenders. In support of this practice they rely on the Excise Manual which has no statutory backing. The practice of compounding offences has been condemned by this court in Dominic v. State of Kerala (1989(1) K.L.T. 601). A copy of that judgment was forwarded to the Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala for taking appropriate remedial action. No effective step is seen to have been taken to remedy this malady. 9. It is seen that departmental authorities have taken a decision to remove the second petitioner from the array of accused in the case. In the case of petitioners land 3 I feel that they are entitled to the relief asked for. I direct the respondent to release them in case they are arrested in connection with C.R. 100/88 on their entering into bonds in sum of Rs.5000/- each. Petitioners should make themselves available for interrogation by the Circle Inspector of Excise as and when required by him. They should not take any step to interfere with the investigation of the case. Crl.M.C. is disposed of in the above terms.