ORDER : 1. The prayer in this Crl. M.C is to quash Annexure A2 and all further proceedings initiated pursuant to that. Annexure A2 is nothing but a final report laid by the Additional Sub Inspector of Yerroor Police Station against the petitioner herein after concluding the investigation in Crime No. 699/2012, charge-sheeting him for the offences punishable under Section 55(a) and (i) of the Abkari Act (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution was as follows:- On 6.9.2012 while conducting patrol duty, the S.I. of Police and party got a reliable information that a person was transporting Indian Made Foreign Liquor in a scooter to a place called Manalil in Ayiranallore Village and when they reached the spot, a four wheeler scooter was found proceeding to the place and the same was intercepted. The vehicle was stopped by its rider. On verification of the scooter, three bottles each of capacity 500 ml. containing Indian Made Foreign Liquor was found kept therein in a plastic cover. On questioning, the officials were told by the person that the liquor was purchased by him from the outlet of Beverages Corporation at Yerroor and transported for sale in retail. The liquor along with the scooter were seized. The whereabouts of the person were collected and he was arrested. The accused along with the articles were taken to the Police Station and Crime No. 699/2012 was registered for the offences punishable under Section 55(a) and 55(i) of the Act, true copy of which is appended to this petition as Annexure A1. 3. Based on the FIR, the investigation was conducted. The same was concluded and on 1.11.2012, a final report was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Punalur, the true copy of which is appended to this petition as Annexure A2. The final report was taken on file by the Additional Court of Sessions, Kottarakkara as S.C. No. 451/2013. At that juncture, this Court was approached by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash Annexure A2 and all further proceedings initiated pursuant to that. 4. Sri. A. Rajasimhan, the learned counsel has drawn my attention to Annexure A2 to contend that, the contraband liquor allegedly transported by the petitioner is IMFL and the quantity is 1.5 litres. At that juncture, this Court was approached by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash Annexure A2 and all further proceedings initiated pursuant to that. 4. Sri. A. Rajasimhan, the learned counsel has drawn my attention to Annexure A2 to contend that, the contraband liquor allegedly transported by the petitioner is IMFL and the quantity is 1.5 litres. According to him, as per Section 10 of the Act, the Government is authorised to prescribe, from time to time, the quantity of liquor or intoxicating drug, which shall be transported by a person without a permit issued under the provisions of the Act, either generally for the whole State or for any local area. According to him, S.R.O. No. 127/99 published in the Official Gazette as G.O. (P) 22/99/TD dated 05.02.2009 is such a notification issued by the Government in exercise of the power under Section 10 of the Act and it permits a person to transport or possess IMFL of quantity 3 litres without a permit or licence being possessed by him. The counsel urged that in the case on hand, the petitioner was allegedly transporting 1.5 litres of IMFL, which is less than 3 litres, being the maximum quantity which a person is authorised to transport without the authority of permit or licence, the prosecution proceedings initiated against him will not sustain. According to him, an allegation that the contraband liquor was transported by the petitioner for sale is also raised in Annexure A2 without being supported by any materials in that regard. Advancing arguments of the nature, the learned counsel canvassed for quashing Annexure A2 and all further proceedings initiated pursuant to that. 5. Section 10 of the Act being relevant in the context on hand is extracted hereunder:- “10. Transporting of liquor or intoxicating drug.-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 provisions of the next following section.” 6. Section 10 authorises the Government to issue Notification in the Official Gazette either generally for the whole State or for any local area specifying the limit of liquor or intoxicating drug which a person could transport without a permit in that regard. 7. Section 10 authorises the Government to issue Notification in the Official Gazette either generally for the whole State or for any local area specifying the limit of liquor or intoxicating drug which a person could transport without a permit in that regard. 7. The Government as per G.O. (P)No.29/98/TD dated 5.3.1998 published as S.R.O. No. 228/98 in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary has enhanced the quantity of the Indian Made Foreign Liquor that can be possessed and transported without permit to 4.5 litres. In view of the large scale misuse of this facility, the Government has decided to reduce the quantity of Indian Made Foreign Liquor other than beer, wine and foreign made foreign liquor that can be possessed and transported without permit to 1.5 litres and accordingly, Notification S.R.O. No. 127/99 was issued by the Government in exercise of the power conferred under Sections 10 and 13 of the Act, which reads:- “GOVERNMENT OF KERALA TAXES (G) Department NOTIFICATIONS G.O. (P) No. 22/99/TD. Dated: Thiruvananthapuram, 5th February, 1999 SRO No. 127/99.--In exercise of the powers conferred by sections 10 and 13 of the Abkari Act, 1 of 1077 and in suppression of all the previous notifications on the subject issued under the said sections, the Government of Kerala hereby notify that no person, not being a licenced manufacturer or vendor of liquor, shall have in his possession or shall transport any liquor specified in column (1) of the table below exceeding the quantity shown against it in column (2) thereof, except under a permit or licence, as the case may be, issued by the competent authority under the said Act. TABLE Kind of liquor Quantity 1. Toddy 2.5 litres 2. Indian Made Foreign Liquor 1.5 litres 3. Beer 4.5 litres 4. Wine 4.5 litres 5. Foreign Made Foreign Liquor 4.5 litres 6. Coco brandy 1.5 litres VINOD BAL Principal Secretary to Government.” 8. By Notification S.R.O. No. 492/99 issued by the Government of Kerala and published in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary dated 3.6.1999, SRO No. 127/99 was amended by inserting the following proviso. “Provided that no such person shall have in his possession or transport more than one kind of liquor.” Subsequently S.R.O. No. 725/2003 was issued by the Government of Kerala with effect from 2.8.2003, which is extracted herein-below:- “GOVERNMENT OF KERALA TAXES (G) Department NOTIFICATION G.O. (P) No. 127/03/TD. “Provided that no such person shall have in his possession or transport more than one kind of liquor.” Subsequently S.R.O. No. 725/2003 was issued by the Government of Kerala with effect from 2.8.2003, which is extracted herein-below:- “GOVERNMENT OF KERALA TAXES (G) Department NOTIFICATION G.O. (P) No. 127/03/TD. Dated: Thiruvananthapuram, 2nd August, 2003 S.R.O. No. 725/2003.--In exercise of the powers conferred by section 10 and 13 of the Abkari Act,1 of 1077, the Government of Kerala hereby make the following amendment to the Notification issued under G.O(P) No. 22/99/TD. dated 5th February, 1999 and 5th published as S.R.O. No. 127/99 in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No. 250 dated February, 1999 namely:- AMENDMENT In the table to the said Notification:- (1) for the entries in column (2) against serial numbers 2, 3 and 4, the entries 3 litres, 7.8 litres and 7.8 litres shall, respectively, be substituted; (2) The proviso shall be omitted. By order of the Governor, SAJEN PETER, Secretary to Government.” As per S.R.O. No. 127/99, the limit of IMFL permitted by the Government to be possessed or transported by a person is 1.5 litres. The quantum of 1.5 litres has been substituted with 3 litres by way of amendment introduced by S.R.O. No. 725/2003 with effect from 2.8.2003. Therefore, the position stands as on date is that a person is legally entitled to possess or transport 3 litres of IMFL without holding a licence or permit. 9. The allegation of the prosecution has to be viewed in the said legal backdrop and the material part of Annexure A2 is reproduced hereunder:- xxx xxx xxx 10. As per the allegation, based on a reliable information that a person is transporting IMFL for sale in a scooter towards Manalil area without any authority and against the provisions of the Act that the ASI of Police, Yerroor Police Station along with his associates proceeded to the spot. According to them, they found the petitioner there and identified him as the man described by the informant, intercepted the scooter ridden by him, conducted examination of the scooter and detected the contraband. It is further alleged that the petitioner on their query told them that the contraband liquor was bought from Beverages Corporation outlet at Yerroor and is being transported for sale. It is further alleged that the petitioner on their query told them that the contraband liquor was bought from Beverages Corporation outlet at Yerroor and is being transported for sale. The further allegation was that since the petitioner was found transporting the liquor without any authority to do so, he was arrested, the contraband was seized and Crime No. 699/2012 was registered. The said crime was investigated and culminated in the laying of Annexure A2. 11. The allegations when scrutinised, this Court could see substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. Firstly, the allegation as it stands on the day discloses the contraband as IMFL. Secondly, the quantum allegedly transported is 1.5 litres. Thirdly, the contraband liquor was allegedly meant for sale. Fourthly, the contraband was allegedly transported without any documents of authorisation. 12. Therefore, it is revealed from the allegations that the petitioner was transporting 1.5 litres of IMFL in his scooter without authorisation. SRO No. 127/99, the Notification issued by the Government in exercise of the power conferred on it under Section 10 of the Act, as amended by a Notification issued later, shows the maximum limit of IMFL, a person can possess or transport without licence or permit is 3 litres. As per the Notification, permit or licence is not required for possessing or transporting IMFL upto the quantity of 3 litres. The petitioner in the case on hand was carrying 1.5 litres of IMFL which comes within the quantity permitted by the Government to possess or transport without authority. 13. An allegation was also raised in Annexure A2 by the prosecution that the IMFL was transported by the petitioner for sale and on its basis, the offences under Sections 55(a) and 55(i) of the Act were incorporated therein. Therefore it is relevant to note, what are the materials available for the prosecution to base its allegation of sale against the petitioner. Before adverting to the basis for raising the allegation of sale, it is apposite to extract Section 55 of the Act hereunder:- “55. For illegal import, etc.-Whoever in contravention of this Act or of any rule or order made under this Act: (a) imports, exports, transports, transits or possesses liquor or any intoxicating drug. Before adverting to the basis for raising the allegation of sale, it is apposite to extract Section 55 of the Act hereunder:- “55. For illegal import, etc.-Whoever in contravention of this Act or of any rule or order made under this Act: (a) imports, exports, transports, transits or possesses liquor or any intoxicating drug. xxx xxx xxx “(i) sells or stores for sale liquor or any intoxicating drug; shall be punishable: (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. (2) xxx xxx xxx Explanation: For the purpose of this section and section 64A, “intoxicating drug” means any intoxicating substance other than a narcotic drug or psyshoctropic substance regulated by the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Central Act 61 of 1985) which the Central Government by Notification declare to be an intoxicating drug.” 14. In the case on hand, the basis firstly for the prosecution to allege sale is the hear say information that a person is transporting liquor for sale, which according to the prosecution, is a reliable one. The basis secondly was the information given by the accused himself while questioning that the liquor was transported for sale. The basis thirdly was the bona fide belief of the officer, who seized it. It is pertinent to note that an allegation of sale is difficult to sustain on the three grounds as projected above. 15. In order to charge the petitioner with an offence under Section 55 (a) or (i) of the Act, the prosecution must establish that he is engaged in importing, exporting, transporting, transiting, possessing, or selling or storing liquor or intoxicating drug in contravention of the provisions of the Act or any rule or any order made under the Act. As per the Act, in order to be engaged in any of the acts aforesaid, valid documents conferring authority are required. Therefore, the prosecution has also to establish that the petitioner was engaged in activities of the above nature without any authority. As per SROs. aforementioned, for transporting IMFL upto 3 litres, a permit is not required. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be found fault with as per the provisions of the Act for transporting 1.5 litres of spirit without any authority. Therefore, the prosecution has also to establish that the petitioner was engaged in activities of the above nature without any authority. As per SROs. aforementioned, for transporting IMFL upto 3 litres, a permit is not required. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be found fault with as per the provisions of the Act for transporting 1.5 litres of spirit without any authority. For the very reason, he cannot also be found fault with under sub-sections (a) and (i) Section 55 of the Act. Therefore, the allegations against the petitioner as per Annexure A2 will not sustain and Annexure A2 and further proceedings initiated pursuant to that are liable to be quashed. 16. In the result, this Crl. M.C. stands allowed. Annexure A2 and all proceedings initiated by Additional Court of Sessions, Kottarakkara in S.C. No. 451/2013 on its basis, stand quashed forthwith.