JUDGMENT : The petitioners are common in all these cases. The issues raised in these writ petitions are intrinsically connected and they can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. W.P (C) No.5311/2021 has been filed challenging Ext.P10 canceling a license issued to the 1st petitioner under the provisions of the Spirituous Preparations (Control) Rules, 1969. W.P (C) No.5505/2021 has been filed challenging confiscation proceedings initiated against the petitioners. W.P (C) No.9107/2021 has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Ext.P3 Crime and Occurrence Report in CR No.118/2020 of Excise Range office, Adoor. 2. It is submitted in the bar that W.P(C) No.9107/2021 can be taken as lead case. Therefore exhibits and documents referred to in this judgment are as they are marked as in W.P (C) No.9107/2021 unless otherwise specifically mentioned. 3. The brief facts necessary for consideration of issues arising in these writ petitions are that:- The 1st petitioner is the holder of Ext.P1 retail license for sale of Spirituous Preparations (Ayush). Exhibit P1 license was issued on 10-03-2020 and was valid upto 31-03-2021. The petitioners were engaged in the sale of Arishtams and Asavams and in respect of which Ext.P1 license had been issued to them. According to the petitioners, the 1st petitioner had ordered certain Arishtams and Asavams from M/s. SMV Herbal Remedies Pvt. Ltd, Kunnikkode, a licensed manufacturer of Ayurvedic Medicines. Exhibit P2 is a copy of license of M/s. SMV Herbal Remedies Pvt. Ltd., Kunnikode. On 03-05-2020, while the petitioners were travelling on motor cycle with certain Arishtams and Asavams procured from M/s. SMV Herbal Remedies Pvt. Ltd., they were apprehended by an Excise team and Ext.P4 mahazer was drawn up. A reading of Ext.P4 mahazer will indicate that upon receiving certain information that the petitioners were engaged in sale of Arishtams and Asavams intending them to be used as a substitute for alcohol or intoxicating drug, the Excise team went to the licensed premises of the 1st petitioner. Since the premises were found to be locked and as they were leaving the premises a person who did not wish to be identified, followed the jeep of the Excise officials and informed them that the petitioners were procuring Arishtams and Asavams from a place called Puthenchanda and they were selling the same at a place called Thazhekavu. Since the premises were found to be locked and as they were leaving the premises a person who did not wish to be identified, followed the jeep of the Excise officials and informed them that the petitioners were procuring Arishtams and Asavams from a place called Puthenchanda and they were selling the same at a place called Thazhekavu. While the Excise team was proceeding to Puthenchanda they saw two persons (the petitioners herein) approaching from the opposite side on a motor cycle. It is alleged that on seeing the Excise officials the petitioners got jittery and the materials they were carrying on their lap fell on the road and it was noticed that several small plastic bottles containing some Arishtams and Asavams were inside the packet being carried by the petitioners. It is alleged that on questioning it was revealed that a quantity of Arishtams and Asavams were also stored in a car belonging to the 1st petitioner which was parked in a workshop. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations the license granted to the 1st petitioner was revoked. The motor cycle and car belonging to the 1st petitioner were confiscated and CR No.118/2020 of Excise Range office, Adoor was registered alleging violation of Section 58A of the Abkari Act, 1077. 4. The Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases would submit that the only substantive offence alleged against the petitioners is that under Section 58A of the Abkari Act. It is submitted that even if the entire allegations against the petitioners in the Crime and Occurrence Report (CR) as well as in the final report are accepted as true, it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed an offence under Section 58A of the Abkari Act. It is submitted that the crucial element for an offence under Section 58A of the Abkari Act is that there must be sale of any preparation which a person knows or has reason to believe is intended to serve as a substitute for alcohol or intoxicating drug. It is submitted that the crucial element for an offence under Section 58A of the Abkari Act is that there must be sale of any preparation which a person knows or has reason to believe is intended to serve as a substitute for alcohol or intoxicating drug. It is submitted that since the 1st petitioner was holder of a valid license for sale of Arishtams and Asavams and since the excise department has no case that any quantity in excess of the permitted quantity has been possessed by the 1st petitioner, the offence under Section 58A of the Abkari Act will not be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that the proceedings are therefore an abuse of process of law and should be quashed as against the petitioners. 5. Sri. Manu V., the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would vehemently contend that the petitioners have not made out any case for interference with the proceedings. It is submitted that the excise officials had received specific information that during the Covid-19 pandemic the petitioners were engaged in sale of Arishtams and Asavams clearly intending the same to be used as a substitute for alcohol. It is submitted that the petitioners have therefore clearly committed the offence punishable under Section 58A of the Abkari Act. It is submitted that the contentions now taken before this Court are matters for evidence and it will not be open to this Court to scan the evidence and materials on record to consider whether the offence as alleged has been made out or not. It is submitted that it is for the petitioners to prove their case before the competent criminal court and a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable to quash the proceedings. It is submitted that a final report has already been filed and there is no challenge to the final report. It is submitted with reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others; 2021 KHC 6371, that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash criminal proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is submitted with reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others; 2021 KHC 6371, that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash criminal proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is submitted that the said decision holds that the High Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. It is submitted that the High Court while examining a case seeking quashing of an FIR should be concerned only with the prima facie material collected by the prosecution and at that stage the allegations do not require any proof. It is submitted that the said decision is also authority for the proposition that the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of the FIR and the material relied on by the prosecution. It is also submitted that when the investigation has been completed and final report has been filed, the Court is also required to consider the materials collected during the course of the investigation to see whether the offence has been made out. It is submitted with reference to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Dhruvaram Murlidar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra; (2019) 18 SCC 191 and State of Haryana and Others v.Ch.Bhajan Lal and Others; 1992 KHC 600, that the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that quashing of proceedings cannot be exercised except in the rarest of the rare cases and the power of this Court to quash criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is justified in the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments. It is submitted that the statements of witnesses forming part of the final report indicate that the petitioners were actually engaged in the sale of Arishtams and Asavams clearly intending the same to be used as a substitute for alcohol and thereby they have clearly committed the offence under Section 58A of the Abkari Act. 6. It is submitted that the statements of witnesses forming part of the final report indicate that the petitioners were actually engaged in the sale of Arishtams and Asavams clearly intending the same to be used as a substitute for alcohol and thereby they have clearly committed the offence under Section 58A of the Abkari Act. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, in reply, would submit that even a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for quashing the proceedings as held by the Supreme Court in Kapil Agarwal and Others v. Sanjay Sharma and Others; (2021) 5 SCC 524 . It is submitted that the filing of the final report has no consequence and nothing prevents this Court from quashing the FIR (CR in the case) even after a final report is filed. He places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh; 2023 KHC 6809, in support of his contention. It is also submitted that going by the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Mamta Shailesh Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand and Others; 2024SCC OnLineSC136, the Court, while exercising jurisdiction in a case, where quashing of criminal proceedings is sought on the ground that no offence is made out, should examine the facts of the case to determine whether any offence has been made out. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Government Pleader, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to succeed. It is seen from the materials produced that the 1st petitioner was holding a license for sale of Arishtams and Asavams. The 2nd petitioner is the father of the 1st petitioner. According to the petitioners, they were apprehended by the excise team while they were bringing Arishtams and Asavams from a licensed manufacturer to their shop for sale in terms of Ext.P1 license. Section 58A of the Abkari Act reads as follows: “58A. For sale of certain preparations. The 2nd petitioner is the father of the 1st petitioner. According to the petitioners, they were apprehended by the excise team while they were bringing Arishtams and Asavams from a licensed manufacturer to their shop for sale in terms of Ext.P1 license. Section 58A of the Abkari Act reads as follows: “58A. For sale of certain preparations. - Whoever sells any preparation which he knows or has reason to believe is intended to serve as a substitute for alcohol or intoxicating drug shall, on conviction before a competent court be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years, or with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees, or with both; Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply to the sale of any medicinal preparation for bona fide treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease in human beings or animals.” It is settled law that penal statutes require strict interpretation. In order to make out an offence under Section 58A of the Abkari Act, the necessary ingredient is that the person/accused must be engaged in selling any preparation which he knows or has reason to believe is intended to serve as a substitute for alcohol or intoxicating drug. In the facts of the present case, as narrated above, it is clear that while the petitioners were apprehended, they had in their possession several Arishtams and Asavams , which they were carrying in a bag. The statements of the witnesses forming part of the final report tend to support the case of the petitioners that, while they were bringing Arishtams and Asavams after purchasing the same from a licensed manufacturer in their Car, the Car broke down and the autorikshaw that came for the purposes of carrying the goods to their shop, had refused to carry the same. It is thus that the 1st petitioner had gone to his house to get his motor cycle. The statement of the workshop owner also indicates that the petitioners had contacted him stating that their Car had broken down and it was on his instruction that they had left their Car in his workshop. The fact that there were Arishtams and Asavams in the Car also is no reason to indicate that the offence under Section 58A of the Abkari Act had been committed by the petitioners. The fact that there were Arishtams and Asavams in the Car also is no reason to indicate that the offence under Section 58A of the Abkari Act had been committed by the petitioners. As the crucial element for the offence under Section 58A of the Abkari Act is the sale of any preparation knowing that such preparation may be used as a substitute for alcohol or intoxicating drug, that crucial element does not appear to be present even if the entire case of the respondent is accepted. Coming to the contention of the learned Senior Government Pleader that since the final report has already been filed, the petitioners cannot seek to quash the Crime and Occurrence Report, I am of the view that in the light of the law laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Abishek (Supra), the said contention cannot be accepted. It cannot be disputed that if the FIR/CR is quashed then all further proceedings including filing of the final report must be deemed to be not in accordance with the law. It is also clear from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P.; 2023 KHC 6763, that the Court, while considering a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash criminal proceedings on the ground that no offence is made out, must scan through the facts and determine for itself as to whether the offence alleged is attracted, and when it comes to the conclusion that no offence is made out, even if the entire facts are believed to be true, the proceedings can be quashed. It is also clear from the aforesaid judgment that Court while exercising such jurisdiction need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. In the facts of the present case, I am clear in my mind that even if the entire facts alleged against the petitioners are believed to be true, no offence under Section 58A of the Abkari Act is made out. Therefore, the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners will amount to an abuse of process of law. In the facts of the present case, I am clear in my mind that even if the entire facts alleged against the petitioners are believed to be true, no offence under Section 58A of the Abkari Act is made out. Therefore, the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners will amount to an abuse of process of law. In the light of the above finding, WP(C) No.9107 of 2021 is allowed and all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 will stand quashed. WP(C) No.5311 of 2021 is allowed by setting aside Ext.P10 order cancelling Ext.P1 license granted to the 1st petitioner under the provisions of the Spirituous preparations (Control) Rules, 1969. WP(C) No.5505 of 2021 is allowed and the proceedings for confiscation (Ext.P6) will stand quashed.