ORDER K.P. Balachandran, J. 1. The petitioner is the third accused in C.C.228/02 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Neyyattinkara. The said case is registered on the basis of Annexure-III Final Report submitted by the Excise Inspector. Thirupuram in CR.No.19/01 registered under Annexure-II Crime and Occurrence Report consequent on Annexure-I Chemical Analysis Report obtained in relation to the toddy seized from the godown of licensee No.3/2000-01 of Thirupuram range for the financial Year 2000-01, as Annexure-I Chemical Analysis Report disclosed that out of four samples of toddy taken from his godown, one sample contained 11.45% by volume of Ethyl Alcohol which is more than the permitted quantity of Ethyl Alcohol in toddy which is 8.1% as per R. 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2001. 2. The petitioner A3 is Power of Attorney holder of the licensee; the first accused in the case is the Manager of the godown and the second accused is the Contractor. The offence charged is under S.57(a) of the Abkari Act on the allegation that the toddy is adulterated as it was found that the alcoholic content therein is above 8.1%. 3. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that though as per Rules, 8.1% was the alcoholic content prescribed in toddy tapped from coconut trees, the Supreme Court reported in (2007 (1) KLT 151 (SC))“ State of Kerala Vs. Unni has declared that the said fixation of alcoholic content in toddy as 8.1% is ultra vires being not based on any scientific principle and that in any event, as the percentage by volume of Ethyl Alcohol was found to be within the range of 8 to 12% as held in the said decision approving the Single Bench decision of this Court, no offence stands made out. Further, Annexure-I report shows that there was no adulteration effected so as to increase the volume of Ethyl Alcohol content in the toddy. 4. Further, Annexure-I report shows that there was no adulteration effected so as to increase the volume of Ethyl Alcohol content in the toddy. 4. Public Prosecutor contends that after the decision of the Apex Court, the Government has vide S.R.O. 145/07 prescribed that the Ethyl Alcohol content of the coconut toddy shall not exceed 8.1% and that as per the amendment brought about vide S.R.O aforesaid in the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002, a deeming provision has been incorporated, that if the alcohol content of toddy exceeds the limit prescribed, it will be deemed that extraneous alcohol has been added to such toddy to increase its intoxicating quality or strength and that for all purposes, such extraneous alcohol will be treated as a foreign ingredient and that therefore, if this provision is given retrospective effect the charge against the petitioner is tenable. 5. However, the amendment incorporated vide S.R.O. 145/07 issued vide G.O.(P) No. 25/2007/TD dt.14/02/2007 cannot have any retrospective effect so as to apply to a case registered in 2001. The result is that Annexure-III charge as against the petitioner is not to end in conviction of the accused for the alleged offence even in case the allegations are proved and conducting trial of the case as against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of court. 6. In the result, allowing this Crl.M.C., I quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. 228/02 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Neyyattinkara.