Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 691 (KER)

Babu v. The Excise Inspector

2005-11-04

K.THANKAPPAN

body2005
Judgment :- Petitioners are accused in C.C.No.844/2001 on the file of the judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally. Offence alleged against the petitioners are under section 56(b) and 67-B of the Abkari Act and rules 9 and 10 of the Kerala Spirituous Preparations (Control Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ and ‘the Rules’. In the complaint it is stated that on 24-12-1998 at about 0.45A.M. Preventive Officer attached to the Excise Circle Office, Karunagappally and party seized vehicle bearing No.KL2-C-2196 Tata 407 along with 42 bottles containing 750Ml. Desamoolarishtam, 18 bottles containing 375 Ml. Panchakokesavam, 750Ml. in 48 bottles and 575 Ml. in 22 bottles Panchakolasavam used for covering cardboard cases and empty bottles in 10 cases, 11 gunny bag with 150 empty bottles in different capacity and cash Rs.40,500/- and a case was registered against the petitioners. It is reported that final charge is filed before the court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 4th petitioner is having licence to manufacture medical and toilet preparations containing alcohol, etc. and also a licence for possession and wholesale sale of spirituous preparation and hence question of violation of rules 9 and 10 of the Rules does not arise and even if the rules are violated, the criminal court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision reported in Mariamma & Anr. V. State of Kerala & Ors., 1998 (1) KLT 286 to support his case. In the above decision this Court held that violation of a condition in the licence or rules made under the Abkari Act by a licensee would amount to an offence under section 56(b) of the Abkari Act. 3. Section 56(b) of the Abkari Act reads as follows:- “(b) Willfully does or omits to do anything in breach of any of the conditions of his licence or permit not otherwise provided for in this Act.” Rules 9 and 10 of the Rules deal with the transportation and possession of spirituous preparations. In the statement filed by the Investigating Officer it is stated that the final charge sheet was laid before the court and CW1, detecting officer was examined as PW1. As per Annexure-A3 final report, the charge filed against the petitioners was under section 56(b) and 67B of the Act and rules 9 and 10 of the Rules. In the statement filed by the Investigating Officer it is stated that the final charge sheet was laid before the court and CW1, detecting officer was examined as PW1. As per Annexure-A3 final report, the charge filed against the petitioners was under section 56(b) and 67B of the Act and rules 9 and 10 of the Rules. The charge against the petitioners is that the 4th respondent, being the licensee, and violated the conditions of Annexure-A5 licence transporting excess quantity of spirituous preparations. As per mahazar, all the contraband articles were seized by the detecting officer. Hence, at this stage this Court is not in a position to hold that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. 4. In the above circumstances, this court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings in C.C.No.844/2001 of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Karunagappally at this stage. Hence, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed.