ORDER : In the petition on hand, proceedings initiated by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Angamaly as C.P.No.20 of 2019, which was originated from crime No.118 of 2017 of Aluva Excise Range is sought to be quashed. The case of the prosecution was that the petitioner is conducting an industrial unit at Meikavu, Angamaly in the name 'M/s. Arackal Aromatics' and engaged in importing rectified spirit as raw material for manufacturing products in the unit. The petitioner was originally issued with a licence No.E-97/07-08 on 19.11.2007 as per order No.XC2-9380/07/K.Dis of the Excise Commissioner. The photocopy of the said licence is produced alongwith as Annexure-B. 2. It is averred that Annexure-B is renewed annually from 2008-09 and lastly till 31.03.2018. Thereafter, Writ Petition No.31582 of 2018 was filed by the petitioner seeking for a declaration that he is entitled to get renewal of Annexure-B. It was also prayed for quashing the order of the Excise Commissioner dated 12.07.2018, (Ext.P7). It was averred that the petitioner was engaged in the manufacture of computer cleaning and brightening liquid and also engaged in sale of that to different persons. 3. The case of the prosecution as revealed from Annexure-A Final Report was that 17 plastic drums containing rectified spirit was seized on 05.09.2017. The allegation of the prosecution was that, in the examination held on 05.09.2017, loss of 905 litres of spirit was noted out of 5000 litres of rectified spirit brought to the premises of 'M/s.Arackal Aromatics' by the licensee and when he was enquired about the reason for the deficient spirit, convincing explanation was not offered by him. For the reason that relevant records relating to manufacture of any products by utilisation of the deficient spirit or regarding sale of the same were not available in the concern, a final report was laid chargesheeting the petitioner for an offence under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act. (for short 'the Act'). 4. The contention of the learned counsel was that the petitioner was engaged in the manufacture of computer cleaning and brightening liquid, and was also engaged in the sale of those to different persons. (for short 'the Act'). 4. The contention of the learned counsel was that the petitioner was engaged in the manufacture of computer cleaning and brightening liquid, and was also engaged in the sale of those to different persons. According to him, even if the allegation that spirit was found deficient from the quantity permitted to be held, the offence under Section 55(i) of the Act will not be attracted for the reason mainly that licence holders or permit holders were excluded from it's purview, since 1997. According to the learned counsel, the only offence liable to be attracted from the allegations is the one punishable under Section 56(b) of the Act. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the petition. As directed by this Court, he has filed statement of facts on behalf of the respondents. It is stated therein that RSI licence has been issued to the petitioner for manufacture of computer motherboard cleaning liquid, which is an industrial product. According to him, RSI licence cannot be converted for use of spirit for portable or any other purpose and it shall be renewed every year. According to him, procedures prescribed for renewal of RSI licence have not been complied with in the case on hand. It is also stated that the Excise Commissioner may cancel or suspend the licence or permit granted under Act for violation of any conditions of licence. The Excise Commissioner has not only the right but also obligation to examine the conduct of business by the licensee. In the statement filed, it is mentioned that the petitioner was enjoying the RSI licence held by him for a period of 11 years with effect from 24.11.2007 till 31.03.2018. According to him, the case on hand is registered against the petitioner under good faith for illicit sale of spirit under the cover of licence. The petitioner was granted RSI licence to possess rectified spirit as raw material for manufacturing products. But no products were seen manufactured in the licensed premises at the time of detection and no registers were seen maintained for token distribution of those products. A huge difference in the stock book maintained during the period of purchase was found and the petitioner failed to describe the purpose of utilisation. Therefore, it was found that the petitioner was selling spirit for amassing financial benefits. A huge difference in the stock book maintained during the period of purchase was found and the petitioner failed to describe the purpose of utilisation. Therefore, it was found that the petitioner was selling spirit for amassing financial benefits. Accordingly, the offence under Section 55(i) of the Act was registered against him for illegal sale of spirit. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor has summarized the reasons for chargesheeting the petitioner as follows; 1. "No products have been manufactured as per the licence. 2. Bills/invoices/production and distribution registers are not seen kept to prove sale or shortage of Spirit. 3. On demand, the licensee could not produce any verbal or documentary evidence of bill, label of products, bottles, etc. to prove the utilization of 905 litres of Spirit. 4. On verification of electricity bill for the month of 08/2017 the consumption is only 10 Units. It is understood that products were not manufactured during 08/2017. 5. Registered technicians or employees were not working in the firm. Muster Roll of the employees were not kept in the firm. 6. The copy of Cash/invoice bills recovered from the firm on 12/09/2017 is not genuine and the address of the consignee mentioned in the bills could not be identified. 7. On verification of the call details of the accused regular contacts were seen with some suspected persons. 8. It is clear that the licensee has sold 905 liters of Spirit for amassing cash illegally by not manufacturing any products as per licence. 9. The case was investigated by the Asst. Excise Commissioner and the Final Report has been submitted before JFCM Court, Angamaly on 23.01.2019 and the Court summoned the accused to present before the Court on 24.07.2019 in C.P.No.20/2019." 7. The learned Public Prosecutor urged to dismiss the petition on hand in the interest of justice and the State. It is pertinent to note that none of the reasons stated by the learned Public Prosecutor as above formed basis for chargesheeting the petitioner for the offence under Section 55(i) of the Act. Section 55(i) of the Act is extracted hereunder, for convenient reference; “55. For illegal import etc.-Whoever in contravention of this Act or of any rule or order made under this Act. Section 55(i) of the Act is extracted hereunder, for convenient reference; “55. For illegal import etc.-Whoever in contravention of this Act or of any rule or order made under this Act. xx xx xx (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, and. (2) xx xx xx xx 8. It is evidenced from the provision that if any person in contravention of the provisions of the Act or of any Rule or Order made under the Act, does any of the acts enumerated under clauses (a) to (i) therein, he is liable to be punished in accordance with Sub-sections (1) and (2) of the Act. Section 55 as it stood in the Act originally is extracted hereunder; “55. For illegal import, etc:-whoever in contravention of this Act or of any rule or order made under this Act or of any licence or permit obtained under this Act”. 9. Words “or of any licence or permit obtained under this Act” were omitted from the Section as it stands originally, by Act 16 of 1997 with effect from 03.06.1997. However, the word 'whoever' is retained in the provision. Therefore, the Legislature intended to punish all persons engaged in sale or storage of liquor or intoxicating drugs, in contravention of the provisions of the Act or any Rule or Order made under the Act. The argument of the learned counsel was that in view of the deletion of the words 'licence or permit' from the Section in the year 1997, licence holder or permit holder is excluded from the purview of Section 55 of the Act. The said argument will not sustain for the reason that the word “whoever” is still there in the Section and it will also takes in licence holder or permit holder. Accepting an argument of the above nature would have the impact of exempting the licence holders or permit holders from facing prosecution, evenif their involvement in sale or storage of liquor or intoxicating drugs in contravention of the provisions of the Act or Rule or Order, made under the Act is found and they will be excluded from meeting with punishment. Or else it would be as if permitting the licence holders or permit holders to engage in sale or storage of liquor or intoxicating drugs in violation of the provisions of the Act, Rules or Order thereunder. The contention of the learned counsel in the context was that the petitioner being a licence holder is liable to be punished for misconduct of licence under Sub-section (b) of Section 56 of the Act. Holders of licence or permit issued under the Act alone are made punishable for misconduct, which were elaborated under Section 56 of the Act. 10. Section 56 is extracted hereunder; “56. For misconduct by licensee, etc.:-whoever , being the holder of a licence or permit granted under this Act [ or being in the employ of such holder and acting on his behalf-] 11. Sub-section (b) of Section 56 of the Act makes the position more clear. It reads:- “(b) [wilfully does or omits to do anything] in breach of any of the conditions of his license or permit not otherwise provided for in this Act; or” 12. It says that if a licence holder or permit holder does or omits to do anything in breach of any of the conditions of his licence or permit specifically provided in the licence or permit and not otherwise provided for in this Act, he shall be prosecuted and punished. The punishment is also prescribed thereunder. The words “not otherwise provided for in this Act” itself indicate that the licence holder or permit holder will have to face prosecution for breach of provisions of the Act or Rules framed or Orders issued thereunder; 13. It is true that Section 56(b) of the Act also starts with the word 'whoever'. But, the word is succeeded by the words 'being holder of a licence or permit granted under this Act or being in the employee of such holder and acting on his behalf'' and therefore, it is clear that only holders of licence or permit issued under the Act or employees under them and agents acting on their behalf are liable to face prosecution for misconduct referred to under the above provision. Therefore, failure to produce licence or permit on demand by any authorised officer under the Abkari Act and breaches of any of the conditions of licence or permit not otherwise provided for in the Act are punishable under Section 56 of the Act. For the reason that the Legislature in it's wisdom has made the licence holders/permit holders or person employed under them or acting on their behalf punishable for misconduct and adulteration respectively under Sections 56 and 57 of the Act, it cannot be urged that in view of the omission of the words 'or of licence or permit obtained under this Act' from Section 55 of the Act in the year 1997, the license holders/permit holders are exempted from prosecution for contraventions of the provisions of the Act or of any Rule or Order made under the Act as provided under Clauses (a) to (i) of Section 55 of the Act. Since the word 'whoever' being retained in Section 55 of the Act and any category of persons are not specifically excluded therefrom, the intention of the Legislature that can be gathered from a reading of the provision was that an act as described under Section 55 of the Act, if committed by any person in contravention of the provisions of the Act, Rules framed thereunder or Orders issued, be punished under Section 55 of the Act, irrespective of himself being a licensee or permit holder. The reason for deletion of the words 'or of any licence or permit' from Section 55 of the Act was the incorporation of Sections 56 and 57 in the Act providing punishment in particular for non-production of licence or permit on demand or misconduct of licences contemplated therein. Therefore, if the words stated supra have not been omitted by the Legislature from Section 55 of the Act in the year 1997, it would have the impact of imposing dual punishments to licence holders or permit holders for breaches of conditions of licence or permit obtained by them under the Act. The licence or permit granted to a person under the Act will takes in several conditions to be complied with while transacting on the strength of those. For violations of terms of licence or permit, the violator would be met with punishment for misconduct and adulteration respectively under Sections 56 or 57 of the Act. The licence or permit granted to a person under the Act will takes in several conditions to be complied with while transacting on the strength of those. For violations of terms of licence or permit, the violator would be met with punishment for misconduct and adulteration respectively under Sections 56 or 57 of the Act. If a person, including licensee or permit holder contravenes the provisions of the Act or Rules or Orders under the Act, he will be met with punishment as provided under Section 55 of the Act. Therefore, if holder of a licence or permit, commits an act of the nature described under Section 55 (a) to (i), the Legislature intends that he be prosecuted and punished thereunder. 14. Bearing the above aspects in mind, the allegations in Annexure-A are perused, the relevant part of Annexure A is extracted hereunder: XXX XXX XXX 15. On the basis of the allegations above, petitioner was chargesheeted for an offence under Section 55(i) of the Act. As discussed supra, for an offence under Section 55(i) to be attracted, allegations that the petitioner was engaged in the sale or has stored liquor or intoxicating drug for sale in contravention of the provisions of the Act, Rules framed or Orders issued thereunder must be there. 16. For chargesheeting a person for an offence under Section 55(i) of the Act, the prosecution must collect and incorporate materials indicative of his involvement in acts of the nature constituting the offence, contemplated therein. Ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 55(i) of the Act are nothing but engagement of the person in sale or storage by the person of liquor or intoxicating drug in the licenced premises in contravention of the Act or of any Rule or Order made under the Act. In the case on hand, the contraband seized was identified in the analysis held at the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory and reported as 'rectified spirit'. 17. 'Spirit' undoubtedly is a category of liquor. Liquor is described in the Act as follows:- (10). “Liquor:-“Liquor” includes spirits of wine, [arrack], spirits, wine, toddy, beer and all liquid consisting of or containing alcohol.” 18. Therefore, liquor takes in 'spirit'. Rectification is described in Sub-section (20) of Section 3, which reads:- “(20). Rectification:-“Rectification” includes every process whereby spirits are purified or are coloured or flavoured by mixing any material therewith.” 19. “Liquor:-“Liquor” includes spirits of wine, [arrack], spirits, wine, toddy, beer and all liquid consisting of or containing alcohol.” 18. Therefore, liquor takes in 'spirit'. Rectification is described in Sub-section (20) of Section 3, which reads:- “(20). Rectification:-“Rectification” includes every process whereby spirits are purified or are coloured or flavoured by mixing any material therewith.” 19. Therefore, spirit, purified, coloured or flavoured by mixing with any other material is 'rectified spirit'. Therefore, it is clear that rectified spirit is nothing but 'liquor' mixed with other materials. 20. In the context, the question relevant for consideration is, whether materials collected by the prosecution are adequate to discern prima facie that as holder of a licence or permit, the petitioner had sold rectified spirit or stored rectified spirit intending to be sold, in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or any Rule or Order made under the Act. 21. What was stated in Annexure-A was that in the raid conducted in 'Arackal Aromatics, Nedumbassery' of which the petitioner was holder of RSI licence bearing No. E-97/17-18, deficiency of 905 litres of spirit out of 5000 litres brought therein as per permit was found. When questioned about the deficient quantity, he failed to explain the reason. The specific allegation of the prosecution was that the petitioner was holder of licence as well as permit and on the strength of the permit issued to him, 5000 ml of rectified spirit was brought to his business concern namely 'Arackal Aromatics, Nedumbassery'. When the Excise Deputy Commissioner visited the concern on 30.8.2017, it was locked temporarily and sealed. The licensee was also not available there then. When it was opened on 05.09.2017 by CW1 in the presence of the licensee and Deputy Excise Commissioner, a shortage of 905 litres of spirit was found from 5000 litres of rectified spirit brought thereto as per permit held by the licensee and he was unable to explain about the deficient spirit. Satisfactory explanation for the deficiency that it was utilised for manufacturing any products of business for which the petitioner was licenced or was sold, was not given. On his failure to furnish materials to establish utilisation of the spirit in any of the manner, he was arrested and produced at the Forest Range Office at Aluva. Crime No.118/2017 was registered against him under Section 55(i) of the Act. On his failure to furnish materials to establish utilisation of the spirit in any of the manner, he was arrested and produced at the Forest Range Office at Aluva. Crime No.118/2017 was registered against him under Section 55(i) of the Act. Thereafter, he was produced before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Angamaly and was remanded to judicial custody. The contraband was also produced before the court and it was received as per T.No.326/2017 and it's safe custody was entrusted to CW6 by order of the court. 22. The conclusion of the investigating officer who conducted investigation in Crime No.118/2017 as contained in the last paragraph of Annexure -A is extracted hereunder;- XXX XXX 23. The petitioner was chargesheeted by the prosecution for the reasons:- (1) loss of 905 litres of spirit found in the raid. (2) want of reasonable explanation from the licensee regarding the deficient spirit noted in the raid. (3) Non-maintenance of documents pertaining to the utilisation of missing spirit in the manufacture of products for which the petitioner was authorised as licensee or sale of it illegally to outside agencies. 24. In Annexure A, the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Ernakulam has concluded stating that the petitioner as licence/ permit holder, had sold 905 litres of rectified spirit unauthorisedly, thereby has transacted in contraventions of the provisions of the Act and therefore is liable to be punished under Section 55(i) of the Act. 25. It is evidenced from the extracts made from Annexure-A supra that despite the efforts made by the investigating officer to collect evidence to find out the reason for the deficient rectified spirit, he did not succeed. It is pertinent to note from Annexure A that the reason for deficiency of 905 litres from 5000 litres brought into the business concern of the petitioner as per permit held by him was not known to the prosecution even at the relevant time of filing of it. 26. Documents pertaining to the utilisation of the rectified spirit were not collected during investigation as those were admittedly not available at the premises of the concern, at the relevant time of the raid. In the said circumstances, assuming that the petitioner had sold 905 litres of spirit for making profits unauthorisedly, he was chargesheeted for the offence under Section 55(i) of the Act. In the said circumstances, assuming that the petitioner had sold 905 litres of spirit for making profits unauthorisedly, he was chargesheeted for the offence under Section 55(i) of the Act. Evidently, the petitioner was chargesheeted for an offence punishable under Section 55(i) of the Act without any cogent materials indicative of his culpability in the alleged transaction being collected. Purely on surmises that the deficient quantity of spirit might have been sold by the petitioner, he was chargesheeted for the offence. With the materials available, the prosecution will not also be able to establish the offence in the trial to follow. 27. The offence under Section 55(i) of the Act is a cognizable one. Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if gives to an officer in charge of a police station form basis for registration of crime under Section 154 Cr.P.C. For the reason that it only sets the criminal law in motion, information must incorporate a precise allegation that a cognizable offence was committed by the person implicated as accused and it must not be vague or incomplete. The information as above is only a key to open up the investigation process. As soon as the investigation is completed, the officer in charge of a police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of offences on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government under clause (i) of sub-Section (2) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. The report must contain: “173. As soon as the investigation is completed, the officer in charge of a police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of offences on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government under clause (i) of sub-Section (2) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. The report must contain: “173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation.- (1)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (1A) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (2) (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating (a) the names of the parties; (b) the nature of the information; (c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case; (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom; (e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170; (h) whether the report of medical examination of the woman has been attached where investigation relates to an offence under section 376, 376A, 376B, 376C[ section 376D or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).].] (ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.” 28. Therefore, the information which an investigating officer is liable to be gathered and incorporated in a final report to chargesheet the accused must include specifically the names of the parties, the nature of the information received, the names of the person who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case and the offences appear to have been committed by him. Therefore, informations collected by the investigating officer on the above counts are fundamental for laying a final report to chargesheet the petitioner for commission of an offence punishable under Section 55(i) of the Act. Only when a final report containing informations of the above nature is filed by the investigating officer against the petitioner, a successful prosecution can be impacted. 29. Only when a final report containing informations of the above nature is filed by the investigating officer against the petitioner, a successful prosecution can be impacted. 29. When Annexure-A is viewed in that backdrop, it is pertinent to note that names of persons who appear to have been acquainted with the circumstances of the case to categorically speak about the commission of the offence, were not incorporated therein. Though several witnesses were cited in the list appended to Annexure A, none of them was meant to say about the sale by the petitioner of quantum of spirit found deficient in the raid, to any third party in contravention of the provisions of the Act or Rules framed or Orders issued thereunder. None of the witnesses cited are proposed to adduce evidence to establish that the remanent quantity of 4095 litres of rectified spirit found stored in the business concern of the petitioner was intended for unauthorised sale. 30. Only when the witnesses cited by the investigating officer were able to say precisely about the involvement of the petitioner in the sale of rectified spirit or storage of the same for sale, he could be chargesheeted for an offence punishable under Section 55(i) of the Act. The materials in Annexure A final report alone could form basis for framing of charges by the court against the petitioner. Framing of a proper charge precedes a fair trial. 31. Therefore, for prosecuting the petitioner for an offence under Section 55(i) of the Act, court must frame a charge incorporating the seven contents as contemplated under Section 211 Cr.P.C , as extracted hereunder:- “211.Contents of charge.-(1)Every charge under this Code shall state the offence with which the accused is charged. (2) If the law which creates the offence gives it any specific name, the offence may be described in the charge by that name only. (3) If the law which creates the offence does not give it any specific name, so much of the definition of the offence must be stated as to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. (4) The law and section of the law against which the offence is said to have been committed shall be mentioned in the charge. (4) The law and section of the law against which the offence is said to have been committed shall be mentioned in the charge. (5) The fact that the charge is made is equivalent to a statement that every legal condition required by law to constitute the offence charged was fulfilled in the particular case. (6) The charge shall be written in the language of the Court. (7) If the accused, having been previously convicted of any offence, is liable, by reason of such previous conviction, to enhanced punishment, or to punishment of a different kind, for a subsequent offence, and it is intended to prove such previous conviction for the purpose of affecting the punishment which the Court may think fit to award for the subsequent offence, the fact date and place of the previous conviction shall be stated in the charge; and if such statement has been omitted, the Court may add it at any time before sentence is passed.” 32. The third content is fundamental in the context of the case on hand. It states that the offence must be stated in a precise manner to give the accused notice of the matter with which he was charged. For stating so precisely the final report must contain materials convincingly pointing to the commission of the offence of engagement in sale of rectified spirit or storage of the same for such sale in contravention of the Act or Rules or Orders thereunder. 33. A reading of Annexure A would disclose that though the prosecution attempted to gather evidence regarding the sale of rectified spirit or storage of the same with intend to sell illegally, it failed to collect it. For the mere reason that spirit brought to the business concern of the petitioner as per permit held by him, was found deficient in quantity during the raid, the petitioner cannot be chargesheeted for the offence under Section 55(i) of the Act. There must be evidence that the portion of rectified spirit found missing therefrom was sold and the remnant is kept therein, intending to be sold in contravention of the provisions of the Act, Rules or Orders thereunder. Only when materials as aforesaid are seized by a court, it could proceed to frame a proper and meaningful charge against the petitioner for an offence under Section 55(i) of the Act and conduct a fair trial against him. Only when materials as aforesaid are seized by a court, it could proceed to frame a proper and meaningful charge against the petitioner for an offence under Section 55(i) of the Act and conduct a fair trial against him. For want of materials indicative of illegal or unauthorised sale or intended sale of spirit in Annexure-A, it is liable to be quashed to the extent, it chargesheets the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 55(i) of the Act. The final report to the extent it chargesheets the petitioner for the offence under Section 55(i) of the Act is therefore quashed forthwith. 34. Nevertheless, materials collected by the investigating officer and available in Annexure-A are sufficient to frame a charge against the petitioner under Section 56(b) of the Act. Therefore, the trial court while framing charge against the petitioner must see that an offence under Section 56(b) of the Act alone is attracted against and proceed to try him accordingly. Crl.M.C is disposed of as above.