Judgment :- Petitioners are accused in Crime No. 2 of 1990 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perinthalmanna - the second respondent herein, for the offence of storing and selling dettol without licence, under the Kerala Spirituous Preparations (Control) Rules, 1969. 2. Petitioners filed Crl. M.C. 1192 of 1990 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before this Court for quashing the prosecution proceedings initiated against them. The same was disposed of by this Court directing the petitioners to challenge the proceedings by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence this original petition is filed. 3. It was argued that the article seized from the petitioners was dettol which is a brand named product. Learned counsel further contended that the label also contained a declaration regarding the ingredients of the preparation and in such declaration it was noted that "alcohol absolute de-natured 13.1% by volume". The Chemical Analyst found that the samples taken from the petitioners' shop contain ethyl alcohol 12.4% by volume. 4. It is not disputed that dettol is a drug within the definition of Section 3(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Petitioners have required licence for dealing with drugs and medicines. The question is whether the petitioners should have taken licence under the Kerala Spirituous Preparations (Control) Rules, 1969 also - which is a rule framed as per the provisions of the Abkari Act. State's legislative competency to pass Abkari Act is defined in Entry 8 of List II of the VIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India. Entry 8 List II is as follows :- "Intoxicating liquors, that is to say, the production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale of intoxicating liquors." Entry 51 List II is as follows :- "Duties of excise on the following goods manufactured or produced in the State and countervailing duties at the same or lower rates on similar goods manufactured or produced elsewhere in India :- (a) : alcoholic liquors for human consumption". Entry 84 in List I of the said Schedule (Union List) is as follows :- "Duties of excise on tobacco and other goods manufactured or produced in India except - (a) alcoholic liquors for human consumption". 5. Entry 84 in List I of the said Schedule (Union List) is as follows :- "Duties of excise on tobacco and other goods manufactured or produced in India except - (a) alcoholic liquors for human consumption". 5. Therefore, the State's power to charge duty or impose restrictions is only regarding production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale of intoxicating goods and alcoholic liquors for human consumption. Following the above interpretation, a Division Bench of this Court in Bombay Oil Mill Industries (P) Ltd. v. Excise Inspector, ILR 1979(2) Kerala 199 : (1980 Tax LR 2258) held that methyl alcohol is outside the provisions of the Kerala Abkari Act and Rules. In Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P. 1990(1) SCC 109 : (AIR 1990 SC 1927) the Supreme Court has held that "intoxicating liquors" in Entry 8 List II or "alcoholic liquors for human consumption" in Entry 51 List II do not cover industrial alcohol being incapable of consumption as such. The matter was again explained by the Supreme Court in Bihar Distillery v. Union of India, 1997(2) SCC 727 : (AIR 1997 SC 1208). Since dettol is an antiseptic germicidal product meant for external use only for which licence is issued under the Drugs Act, it will not come within the purview of the Abkari Act or Rules made thereunder. Moreover, it cannot be held that dettol is fit for human consumption. There is no allegation also that dettol is ever used for illicit intoxicating liquor. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted on the basis of the charge laid under the Abkari Act or any of the Rules made thereunder for mere possession of dettol. Even though dettol contains absolute ethyl alcohol it cannot be held that the same was meant or fit for human consumption. Therefore, I quash Exts. P4, P5 and P6 proceedings taken against the petitioners. In the result, the original petition is allowed. Order accordingly.