Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 326 (KER)

Muraleedharan v. Sub Inspector of Police

2014-04-08

P.D.RAJAN

body2014
Judgment : 1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Code) to quash Annexure A in Crime No. 906/2011 of Vellikulangara Police Station which was filed under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act 1077 (Kerala). First petitioner is the brother of the licensee of Hotel Luciya, Chalakkudy and second petitioner is a practicing lawyer at Chalakkudy, who happened to be a passenger in a vehicle KL-32/A-5656 on his way to his wife's house at Kodali, due to a vehicle bandh. While they were travelling in the above vehicle, the Sub Inspector of Police, Vellikulangara inspected the vehicle at Kodali junction near Chalakkudy and registered a case for the offence punishable under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act. Petitioners contended that prima-facie case is not made out against them as alleged in the FIR and if trial is conducted on the basis of the alleged seizure, it will be a mere abuse of the process of court. 2. The prosecution allegation is that, on 5.11.11, the Sub Inspector, Vellikulangara Police Station was conducting patrol duty within his jurisdiction. At 12.50 p.m, when he reached at Government L.P. School, Kodali, the vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-32/A-5656 came there, and on inspection of the vehicle they detected 192 bottles of Rum, 24 bottles of Brandy and 24 bottles of Beer in the vehicle. Petitioners were arrested on the spot itself and registered crime No. 906/11 under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act. Petitioners contended that the liquors found in the car were purchased from the Kerala Beverages Corporation, Chalakkudy as per licence of Hotel Luciya, Chalakkudy and on the way to Hotel Pratap Regency at Kodali by the licensee, the police seized the liquor. There is only violation of licence condition, hence the petitioners approached this Court to quash Annexure A. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that, the first petitioner is the brother of the licensee one Prathapan, one of the Directors of Hotel Luciya Chalakkudy, his son Prijith Prathapan is the licensee of Hotel Pratap Regency at Kodali near Chalakkudy. First petitioner is looking after the affairs of both these hotels. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that, the first petitioner is the brother of the licensee one Prathapan, one of the Directors of Hotel Luciya Chalakkudy, his son Prijith Prathapan is the licensee of Hotel Pratap Regency at Kodali near Chalakkudy. First petitioner is looking after the affairs of both these hotels. On that date, stock in the Hotel Pratap Regency exhausted and as per urgent need of that day, they shifted a few bottles of liquor from the Hotel Luciya, Chalakkudy, which was purchased from the wholesale godown of Kerala State Beverages Corporation, Chalakkudy. Since the liquor was purchased from KSBC, Chalakkudy by the licensee of Hotel Luciya, the owner has right of possession and transportation of such liquor in urgent need to his brother's another hotel which amounts to a violation of licence condition. If the licensee or his employee has committed any violation of licence conditions, Sections 56 and 63 are the proper Sections against them. Both offences are compoundable as per Section 67 (A) of the Abkari Act, which was introduced on 7.12.2009 by the Act 3 of 2010. Learned counsel placed reliance on various decisions reported in Sabu v. State of Kerala ( 2003 (2) KLT 173 ), Mohanan v. State of Kerala ( 2007(1) KLT 845 ), Rajan & others v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KLJ 461), Gopakumar v. State of Kerala ( 2011 (1) KLT 450 ), Nobbey & Another V State of Kerala (2011 (1) KLD 11). 4. The learned Public Prosecutor urged that, nothing has been produced before this Court to show the relationship between the licensee and the petitioner, and it is a matter of evidence which can be proved only in a full fledged trial. The 2nd Petitioner is their legal adviser and not an innocent passenger. Since he is a lawyer, he has knowledge about the consequence of the violation of law. Only after verifying the Stock Register, the truth with regard to transportation of liquor can be revealed. Therefore only after a full fledged trial, these things can be drawn in this case. If any interference is made, it will affect the entire prosecution case at this stage. 5. Before adverting to the arguments I wish to refer the relevant statutory provisions with regard to the offence punishable under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act. Therefore only after a full fledged trial, these things can be drawn in this case. If any interference is made, it will affect the entire prosecution case at this stage. 5. Before adverting to the arguments I wish to refer the relevant statutory provisions with regard to the offence punishable under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act. Section 55 of Abkari Act reads as follows: "Section 55 For illegal import, etc:- Whoever in contravention of this Act or of any rule or order made under this Act.60[xxx]" (a) imports, exports, 61[ transports, transits or possesses] liquor or any intoxicating drug; or" (b) manufactures liquor or any intoxicating drug; (c) omitted (d) taps or causes to be tapped any toddy-producing tree, or (e) draws or causes to be drawn toddy from any tree; or (f) constructs or works any distillery, brewery, winery or other manufacture in which liquor is manufactured; or (g) uses, keeps, or has in his possession any materials, still, utensil, implement or apparatus whatsoever for the purpose of manufacturing liquor other than toddy or any intoxicating drug; or (h) bottles any liquor for purposes of sale; or (i) sells or stores for sales liquor or any intoxicating drug; shall be punished. (1) for any offence other than an offence falling clause (d) or clause (e), with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which shall not be less than rupees one lakh and (2) for an offence falling under clause (d) or clause (e), with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both. Explanation:- For the purpose of this section and section 64 A, "intoxicating drug" means an intoxicating substance, other than a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance regulated by the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (Central Act 61 of 1985), which the Government may by notification declare to be an intoxicating drug. 6. Explanation:- For the purpose of this section and section 64 A, "intoxicating drug" means an intoxicating substance, other than a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance regulated by the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (Central Act 61 of 1985), which the Government may by notification declare to be an intoxicating drug. 6. A perusal of Section 55 (a) shows that it deals with illegal imports and exports of liquor or intoxicating drug or transport which means carrying liquor or intoxicating drug from one place to another within State, transit which means act or process of conveying liquor or intoxicating drug especially for a distance in a State to another place in that State or to any other State through the territory of the State of Kerala or possession of such liquor or intoxicating drug in contravention of the Abkari or Abakri Rules. Sub Clause (b) deals with manufacture of any liquor or intoxicating drug. Sub Clause (d) deals with illegal tapping of any toddy-producing tree or causes to be tapped any toddy producing tree. Sub clause (e) says about draws or causes to be drawn toddy from any tree ; Sub clause (f) to (i) are not relevant to this context and I omit those sub clauses. This means that possession of legally purchased liquor or intoxicating drug with proper licence or with receipt will not come under this Section. The legally purchased liquor can be transported or transited or dealt with by the purchaser subject to the rules and government orders made there under. 7. Section 56 deals with misconduct of the licensee and Section 58 deals with possession of illicit liquor. The offences not otherwise provided under the Act are dealt under Section 63 of the Abkari Act. It says that whoever is guilty of any act or intentional omission in contravention of any provisions of this Act, or any rule or order under this Act, and not otherwise provided for in this Act, on conviction shall be punished with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with both. Here there is no case that petitioners were transporting any illicit liquor or intoxicating drug. 8. Here there is no case that petitioners were transporting any illicit liquor or intoxicating drug. 8. An identical question was considered by this Court in Sabu v. State of Kerala ( 2003(2) KLT 173 ) and explained the legal position where there was no transport of illicit liquor under the Abkari Act. In paragraph 5 it is explained as follows: "There is no case for the prosecution that accused were transporting illicit liquor or they have illegally imported the liquor or the liquor was adulterated or they have manufactured the liquor or liquor was transported for illegal second sale. Therefore, the words, import, export, transport, transit or possession of liquor read with heading to the section show that it is applicable to illegal liquors. Here, the liquor was purchased from the Kerala State Beverages Corporation for own consumption and there is no question of any illegal import or transporting or possessing illicit liquor. The only offence is that they were in possession of excess quantity of liquor, permissible under law though purchased legally from the Kerala State Beverages Corporation. "9. A Division Bench of this Court repeatedly explained the above legal position in Mohanan v. State of Kerala ( 2007 (1) KLT 845 ) in para 9 and 10 and held that Section 55 (a) is applicable only when persons illegally import, or transport liquor or is in possession of illicit liquor. In paragraph 8 & 9, the Division Bench of this Court held as follows: "Section 55 is a penal provision. It is settled proposition that statute imposing criminal or other penalty shall normally be construed narrowly in favour of the person proceeded against especially when the punishment provided is monstrous. This rule has been stated by Mahajan, C.J. as follows: "If two possible and reasonable constructions can be put upon a penal provision, the court must lean towards that construction which exempts the subject from penalty rather than the one which imposes penalty. It is not competent to the court to stretch the meaning of an expression used by the legislature in order to carry out the intention of the legislature. "(Tolaram Relumal & Anr. v. State of Bombay ( AIR 1954 SC 496 ). It is not competent to the court to stretch the meaning of an expression used by the legislature in order to carry out the intention of the legislature. "(Tolaram Relumal & Anr. v. State of Bombay ( AIR 1954 SC 496 ). On the principle that penal provisions are strictly construed it was held by the Apex Court that "contravention of conditions of a licence granted under a Statutory Order cannot be construed as contravention of the Order resulting in penal consequences, unless the order itself provides that the licensee shall comply with all the conditions of the licence". (East India Commercial Co. Ltd. Calcutta & Anr. V. Collector of Customs ( AIR 1962 SC 1893 ) (See also: W.H. King v. Republic of India & Anr. ( AIR 1952 SC 156 at page 158). Applying the above principle of strict interpretation, penal provisions for contravention of rules made under an Act cannot be construed and applied for contravention of the Act as held by the Supreme Court in Becker Gry and Co. Ltd. &* Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.( (1970) 1 SCC 352 ). (See also: Tolaram Relumal & Anr. v. State of Bombay ( AIR 1954 SC 496 )." 9. The minimum fine amount under Section 55 is Rupees Five lakhs. Punishment itself suggests Section 55 is intended for very serious offences. Object of the Act which is to be interpreted also shall be looked into. If a person sells or possesses (Section 57A) illicit or adulterated liquor (which may lead to liquor tragedies) or one manufactures (Section 55 (b)) or imports or exports liquor (Section 55 (a)) without licence or sells liquor (S.55 (i)) illegally without licence causing heavy financial burden on the State by avoidance of tax etc, offence is very serious and punishment of a minimum fine of Rupees One lakh may be justifiable. The words 'transports, transits or possesses' were subsequently added to the words 'imports, exports'. The word 'transports, transits or possesses' coming after the words 'imports exports'. The literal meaning of "Ejusdem Generis' is 'of the same class or kind'. (See: Trayner's Latin Maxims (Seventh Edition, page 181). Rule of 'Ejusdem Generis" is explained and accepted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni @ Moopil Nayar v. The State of Madras and Kerala & Ors. The literal meaning of "Ejusdem Generis' is 'of the same class or kind'. (See: Trayner's Latin Maxims (Seventh Edition, page 181). Rule of 'Ejusdem Generis" is explained and accepted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni @ Moopil Nayar v. The State of Madras and Kerala & Ors. (1960 KLT 31(SC) = AIR 1960 SC 1080 ), State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Kempaiah ( AIR 1998 SC 3047 ) etc. to the effect that when particular words pertaining to a class, category or genus are followed by general words, the general words are construed as limited to things of the same kind as those specified. This rule applies to the following circumstances : 1. The statute contains an enumeration of specific words; 2. The subjects of enumeration constitute a class or category; 3. That class or category is not exhausted by the enumeration; 4. The general terms follow the enumeration; and 5. There is no indication of a different legislative intent. (See the decision of the Apex Court in Tribhuvan Prakash Nayyar v. Union of India ( AIR 1970 SC 540 at 545). In 'Maxwell on The interpretation of Statutes', Twelfth Edition, page 297, quoting R. v. Cleworth ((1864) 4 B. & Section 927), it is stated as follows: "..... the general word which follows particular and specific words of the same nature as itself takes its meaning from them and is presumed to be restricted to the same genus as those words. For according to a well established rule in the construction of statutes, general terms following particular ones apply only to such persons or things as are ejusdem generis with those comprehended in the language of the Legislature". In Ashbury Railway Carriage & Iron Co. v. Riche ((1875) L.R. 7 H.L.653), the House of Lords had to consider the statement in a Memorandum of Association that one of the objects of the company was "to carry on the business of mechanical engineers and general contractors." Lord Cairns L.C said that the generality of the expression 'general contractors' was limited by the previous words 'mechanical engineers', and that it ought to be confined to the making of contracts connected with that business. The words in a statutory provision is to be construed as a whole. The words in a statutory provision is to be construed as a whole. If Section 55 (a) is applicable to all kinds of transport or possession of liquor (without licence), separate provisions need not have been made for transport or possession of liquor. In this connection, we are also of the view that heading of Section 55 gives an indication of the legislative intent as noticed in paragraph 3 of the judgment in Sabu v. State of Kerala ( 2003 (2) KLT 173 ). In a case where licensee violates the conditions of licence or commits misconduct by selling the liquor in a holiday, it will come only under Section 56 as specific provision for misconduct of licence is mentioned under Section 56 and the above offence will not come under Section 55 of the Act. Possession of liquor knowingly that it was illegally imported or knowing that it was not duty paid or illegally transported or manufactured, the offence will come under S.58, but, knowledge that it was illegally imported or transported or manufactured or tax was not paid on that liquor is a condition under Section 58. Therefore, mere possession even with knowledge that possession was illegal will not attract a higher penalty". 10. In Rajan and Others v. State of Kerala and Another (2010 (4) KHC 607), in paragraph 9 it was held as follows: "Question then is whether on the facts of this case, as seen from Annexure-B mahazar, an offence under Section 55 (a) or 55 (i) is attracted. As stated earlier Section 55 (a) is not attracted. Though learned Public Prosecutor argued that as toddy was found stored not within the licensed premises of accused 3 to 5, an offence under Section 55 (i) is attracted, when it is admitted that accused 3 and 4 are the licensees of toddy shop of group No. IX and they are the licensees of toddy shop No.55 and toddy was seized from a room near to the said toddy shop, though belonging to fifth accused, a licensee with others of toddy shops of Group X, prosecution case is that accused 3 to 5 together stored the toddy jointly, as far as accused 3 and 4, the licensee of toddy Shop No.55 the case could only be that they stored toddy outside the licensed premises of toddy shop No.55. It would only be a violation of sub-rule 5 of Rule 7 of Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules which provides that possession or sale at a licensed premises of any liquor, other than to which the license relates, is prohibited" 11. A single Judge of this Court in Nobbey v. State of Kerala (2011(1) KLD 11, explained the position after insertion of Section 67A of the Abkari Act. Paragraph 6 reads as follows: "As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior counsel, by Abkari (Amendment) Act 3 of 2010, repealing Abkari Amendment Ordinance 6 of 2010, Section 67A was inserted to the principal Act by Section 12. It provides that the Commissioner of Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of excise of the district concerned or any Abkari Officers specially empowered by the Government in this behalf by notification in the Gazette, may accept, from any person reasonably suspected of having committed any of the offences specified in column(1), a sum of money as Specified in Column(3) of the Table, by way of composition for the offence which may have been committed. Where any property has been seized, the same shall be confiscated to Government or disposed of, in such a manner as may be prescribed. Under sub-section 2 of Section 1, the Amending Act shall be defined to have come into force on 30/3/1996 and the remaining provisions shall be deemed to have come info force on 07/12/2009. Therefore, Section 67A which was inserted by Abkari (Amendment) Act 3 of 2010 came into force w.e.f 06/12/2009. In such circumstances, if the offence alleged was committed it can only be under Section 67A. Petitioners are entitled to get the offence compounded Column (1) shows the offence, which could be compounded under Section 67A. First item is transporting of liquor or intoxicating drug in excess of the quantity prescribed by the Government by notification. Column (2) shows; corresponding section, namely Section 10 of Kerala Abkari Act. Compounding fee is fixed in Column No. (3), namely Rs. 5,000/-. Section 10 of Kerala Abkari Act provides that no liquor or intoxicating drug, exceeding such quantity as the Government may from time to time, prescribe by notification in the Gazette either generally for the whole State or for any local area, shall be transported except under a permit issued under the provision of the next following section. Section 10 does not provide for penalty. Section 10 does not provide for penalty. Hence, as provided under Section 63 whoever is guilty of any act or intentional omission in contravention of any of the provision of the Act, or of any rule or order made under the Act, and not otherwise provided for in the Act shall, on conviction before a Magistrate, be punished for each such willful act or omission as provided therein. Therefore, when the only offence attracted against the petitioners is only under Section 63 of the Act which is penal provision for violation of Section 10 of the Act, as provided under serial No.1 of table to Section 67A of Kerala Abkari Act, the offence is compoundable. As provided under sub-section 1 Commissioner of Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Excise of the district concerned or any Abkari Officer specially empowered by the Government in this behalf by notification in the Gazette, has to accept the willingness of the accused to compound the offence. Third respondent, being the Deputy Commissioner of Excise of the District within whose jurisdiction the offence was committed, is therefore, to accent the willingness of the petitioners to compound the offence as provided under subsection 1 of Section 67A of Kerala Abkari Act. Petition is allowed. Annexure-C FIR to the extent it relates to an offence, under Section 55 (a) of Abkari Act is quashed. It is declared that only an offence under Section 63 of Abkari Act is attracted. As provided under Section 67A (1) of Abkari Act, petitioners are entitled to get the offence compounded. Third respondent is therefore, to accept the willingness of the petitioners to compound the offence as provided under Section 67A (1). As provided sub-section (1) of Section 67A Indian Made Foreign liquor seized shall be confiscated to the Government or disposed in such a manner as prescribed. As provided under Section 67B, for confiscation the Indian Made Foreign Liquor seized in the case are to be produced before the third respondent for confiscation. As it is with the permission of the learned Magistrate 79 bottles are now kept in the custody of the Police, they are to be produced before the third respondent for initiating confiscation proceedings." 12. As it is with the permission of the learned Magistrate 79 bottles are now kept in the custody of the Police, they are to be produced before the third respondent for initiating confiscation proceedings." 12. The learned Senior counsel submitted that the petitioners transported the liquor which was purchased from KSBC godown Chalakkudy by Hotel Luciya, Chalakkudy to Hotel Pratap Regency, Kodali for some urgent needs which is a violation of licence condition. In this context, I called for a report from the Excise Deputy Commissioner regarding the licence details of Hotel Pratap Regency, Kodali. The investigating Officer filed a statement on 18.3.2014. 3. "It is humbly submitted that the further investigation of the case was being stayed by the Honourable High Court of Kerala Vide Crl.M.C 3827/11 filed by the petitioners. The petitioners in this Crl.M.C stated that the Indian Made Foreign Liquor and Beer was being purchased from Kerala State Beverages Corporation vide permit number 021693, 021721, and invoice number 2652, 2653, 2668, 2669, 3323, and 3322 for sale at Luciya Drive in Restaurant Chalakudy and the same was being transported to the Prathap Bar, Kodaly and the crime case registered against them are the violation of Foreign Liquor Licence 9(1) and they committed only the offence under Section 56 (b) of Abkari Act. 4. It is humbly submitted that as a part of the investigation of the crime 906/11 of Vellikulangara Police Station, on enquiry with Kerala State Beverages Corporation Ltd, warehouse number 16, Chalakudy, it is able to known that the seized 81 Ltrs of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and 15.6 Ltrs of Beer was sold to P.K.Prathapan, Hotel Luciya Drive in Restaurant, Chalakkudy, holder of license number FL-3-37 for the sale in the said hotel vide permit number 021693, 21721, and invoice number 2652, 2653, 2668, 2669, 3323, and 3322. The investigation of the case reveals that the petitioners was transporting 81 Ltrs of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and 15.6 Ltrs of Beer in the dickey Skoda Car bearing Reg. No. KL-32-A-5656, without any authorization. The Sub Inspector made the seizure of the liquor in the good faith that the liquor was being transported unauthorized for illegal sale". Paragraph 3 & 4 of the Statement reads as follows : 13. No. KL-32-A-5656, without any authorization. The Sub Inspector made the seizure of the liquor in the good faith that the liquor was being transported unauthorized for illegal sale". Paragraph 3 & 4 of the Statement reads as follows : 13. The copy of licence was verified by the Excise Deputy Commissioner in which it is mentioned that the licensee shall possess or use in the licensed premises only such standard measures of capacity as prescribed by the Government from time to time. The violation of the licence conditions by the licensee or by any person, empowers the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Excise to impose fine or cancellation of licence. The Deputy Commissioner of Excise shall be competent to impose all or any of the above penalties except cancellation of the license which shall be done by the Excise Commissioner. After amendment, violation of permit conditions are compoundable. Now, the question that remains is whether the investigation by police under Section 55(a) of Abakari Act is proper or not ? It is settled by several decisions of this Court that Section 55 (a) deals with only illegal imports, exports, transports and transit or possession of liquor or any intoxicating drug. It is made clear that Section 55 (a) is applicable only where persons illegally import or transport liquor or are in possession of liquor illegally. In the circumstances, I am of the view that, there is only a violation of licence condition. Instead of Section 55 (a), Section 56(b) is the proper section for breach of conditions of licence or permit. 14. After insertion of new Section 67 A of the Abkari Act the legislature extended the power to compound offence by certain officers. The Section empowers the Commissioner of Excise or the Deputy commissioner of Excise of the District concerned or any Abkari Officer specially empowered by the Government in this behalf by notification in the Gazette, to accept from any person reasonably suspected of having committed any of the offences specified in column (1), a sum of money as specified in column (3) of the Table below by way of composition for the offence which may have been committed. Besides, where any property has been seized, the same shall be confiscated to Government or disposed of in such manner as may be prescribed. This Section came into force with effect from 7.12.2009. Besides, where any property has been seized, the same shall be confiscated to Government or disposed of in such manner as may be prescribed. This Section came into force with effect from 7.12.2009. Sub Section 2 shows that where any case involving an offence specified under sub-section (1) is pending before a court of law, such offence may be compounded with the permission of such court and a report of the action taken thereon shall be filed before the court. Sub section (3) says on payment of such sum of money or such value or both as the case may be, to such officer empowered for the purpose under subsection (1), the accused person, if in custody, shall be discharged. “TABLE” 15. This Court in the decision reported in Suresh and another v. State of Kerala ( 2011(1) KLT 614 ) held that transportation of toddy in excess quantity permitted under the license is violation of offence punishable under Section 56 (b) of the Act, if the licensee or his employee acted on behalf of the license holder. 16. The first petitioner is the brother of the licensee who willfully violated the conditions of licence which is an offence under Section 56 of the Abkari Act. According to Section 56 whoever being the holder of a licence or permit granted under the Act, or being employee of such holder and acting on his behalf willfully does or omit to do anything in breach of any of the conditions of his licence or permit shall on conviction before a Magistrate be punishable for each such offence with imprisonment or fine. The second petitioner is a lawyer by profession and legal adviser who travelled in that vehicle knowing the violation of licence condition and also acted as an agent of the licensee. In short, petitioners acted as agents of the licensee and both are liable under Section 56(b) of the Abkari Act and entitled to apply for compounding as provided under Section 67 A of the Abkari Act. The Indian made foreign liquors seized were produced before the Excise Deputy Commissioner for further proceedings as per law and I am not interfering in that proceedings. In the result, I quash all proceedings under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act against petitioners in Annexure A in crime No. 906/11 of Vellikulangara Police Station. The Indian made foreign liquors seized were produced before the Excise Deputy Commissioner for further proceedings as per law and I am not interfering in that proceedings. In the result, I quash all proceedings under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act against petitioners in Annexure A in crime No. 906/11 of Vellikulangara Police Station. The petitioners are liable at any rate, under Section 56 (b) of the Abkari Act which is compoundable under Section 67 A of the Act. Investigating officer is directed to proceed under Section 56 (b) of the Abkari Act alone. That being the position the Deputy Commissioner of the Excise of the District, or any Abkari Officer specifically empowered by the Government in this behalf by notification in the official gazette has to accept the willingness of the accused to compound the offence. The Crl.M.C is partly allowed.