Allowed

Rarichan George v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Mar 2009Crl.MC/4163/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous case, the High Court allowed the petition to quash proceedings against accused charged under the Kerala Abkari Act. The court held that since the relevant rules under which the offence was constituted were struck down by the Supreme Court, the prosecution was invalid and allowed the quashing of the case.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous case was allowed and the pending prosecution against the petitioners was quashed.

Rarichan George Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2009 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1930

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4163 of 2005()

¶6

------------------------CRIME NO.31/05 OF EXCISE RANGE, KATTAPPANA

¶7

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED.

¶8

¶9

RARICHAN GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE, KUZHIKUTHIYANI HOUSE, KANJIYAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶10

CHANDRAN, S/O.SREEDHARAN, CHERIANOLIKKAL HOUSE, SWARAJ, AYYAPPANKOVIL VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT.

¶13

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, (EXCISE INSPECTOR OF KATTAPPANA RANGE, CRIME NO. 31/05, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.M.KAMMAPPU

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.15043/05 IN CRL.M.C.NO.4163/05

¶18

//DISMISSED//

¶19

04.03.09

¶20

SD/-M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.

¶21

TRUE COPY

¶22

P.A.TO JUDGE

¶23

M.C.HARI RANI, J.

¶24

-----------------------------------------------------

¶25

CRL.M.C.No.4163 OF 2005

¶26

DATED THIS THE 4^th DAY OF MARCH, 2009

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

Petitioners face indictment in a prosecution under Section 57(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of final report submitted by the Investigating Officers. The crux of the allegations is that the sample of toddy which was

¶29

collected from the toddy offered for sale in the toddy shop No.14/05-06 on 27.5.2005 contained ethyl alcohol in excess of the prescribed quantity under the relevant stipulations of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said relevant Rules have since been struck down by the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Unni ( 2007(1) KLT 151) and in these circumstances, there can be no valid prosecution against the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the petitioners are entitled to get the proceedings against them quashed.

¶31

The learned Public Prosecutor, submits that the State

¶32

CRL.M.C.No.4163/05 -2-

¶33

has no objection in quashing the prosecution against the petitioners. I find the request of the petitioners to be absolutely justified. Similar proceedings have already been quashed. It is not necessary to advert to the facts in any greater detail in this order. In these circumstances, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. The prosecution pending against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

¶34

M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.

¶35

dsn

Rarichan George v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rarichan George v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.B.Sharma Vs the Asst.Registrar of Companies

C.B.Sharma Vs the Asst.Registrar of Companies

K.J. Santhakumari Vs I.C.I.C.I. Bank & Others

Baby M.P. Vs State of Kerala

Das P.V. Vs Anoop T.Chandran

N.K.Babu Vs Manojkumar