Petitioner challenged the cognizance of a case under the Abkari Act via a Section 482 CrPC petition, relying on State of Kerala v. Unni to seek quashing. The Court distinguished Unni due to different facts where chemical analysis confirmed added alcohol in toddy. The petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
TUESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1932
Crl.MC.No. 4298 of 2010() ------------------------SC.1621/2001 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, TRIVANDRUM
PETITIONER(S): A4:
------------------------------
THANKAPPAN NAIR, S/O. SADASHIVAN PILLAI, SHALINI BHAVAN, PUTHIYATHURA, KARAKULOM VILLAGE, KARAKULAM DESOM.
BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN
RESPONDENT(S): STATE:
----------------------------------------
THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOVAR CIRCLE, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. I.V. PRAMOD
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
Crl.M.C.No.4298 of 2010
ORDER
Petitioner is the fourth accused in Crime No. 48/1999 of Kanjiramkulam Police Station, registered under Section 55(a) of Abkari Act, now pending as S.C.No.1621/2001 before Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track-III), Thiruvananthapuram. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken contending that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in
State of Kerala v. Unni (2007 (1) KLT 151), based on Annexure-B Certificate of Chemical Analysis, petitioner cannot be prosecuted and therefore, the case is to be quashed. Petitioner relied on Annexure-C judgment of this Court in O.P.No. 4365/2002 and Annexure-D judgment in O.P.No. 34932/2001.
CRMC 4298/10
2
decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Unni's
case (supra), it was held that Rule 9(2) of Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 2002 is unworkable, vague and unreasonable and no prosecution will lie on the basis of that Rule. Finding that there is no allegation that petitioner therein was guilty of mixing toddy with ethyl alcohol, the proceedings against the petitioner was quashed. In Annexure-C judgment, this Court quashed the proceedings based on the final report holding that a violation referable to the statutory provisions alone would be sustainable and therefore, petitioners cannot be prosecuted based on the impugned final report.
prosecutor, facts are different in this case. Annexure-B Certificate of Chemical Analysis shows not only percentage of ethyl alcohol at 15.67 by volume, but that toddy contained added alcohol.
CRMC 4298/10 3
Therefore, based on Unni's decision (supra), the case cannot be quashed as sought for. Petition is dismissed.
23rd November, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings in the Abkari case should be granted based on the decision in State of Kerala v. Unni.
Whether the findings in State of Kerala v. Unni regarding Rule 9(2) of Abkari Shops Disposal Rules apply to the present case where chemical analysis showed added alcohol in toddy.
Whether the petitioner is liable for prosecution given the evidence of added ethyl alcohol in the toddy.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Kerala v. UnniDistinguished¶19
State of Kerala v. Unni (2007 (1) KLT 151)
O.P.No. 4365/2002Referred¶19
O.P.No. 34932/2001Referred¶19
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Thankappan Nair
State of Kerala
M. Sasidharan Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
