Disposed

Santhappan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Feb 2012Crl.MC/235/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a petition under Section 482 CrPC regarding an alleged offence due to starch presence in toddy. It vacated prior interim directions protecting the licence and upheld the investigation timeline while clarifying starch prohibition under relevant notifications.

What did the court decide?

Vacated direction not to cancel licence; sustained direction to complete investigation within six months.

Santhappan Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE. P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/26TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 235 of 2012 ()

¶6

(CRIME NO. 58/2011 OF ALAPPUZHA EXCISE RANGE)

¶7

(CRIME NO. 58/2011 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ALAPPUZHA.)

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:

¶9

SANTHAPPAN MUZANAYIL HOUSE, CHETTIKAD, PATHIRAPALLY VILLAGE AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA.

¶10

P. AJEESH THAYYIL HOUSE, PATHIRAPALLY DESOM, AMBALAPUZHA

¶11

ALAPPUZHA.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN

¶13

SMT.K.PUSHPAVATHI

¶14

SRI.JOSE JONES JOSEPH

¶15

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

¶16

STATE OF KERALA

¶17

REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶18

ERNAKULAM.- 682 031.

¶19

EXCISE INSPECTOR, ALAPPUZHA RANGE, ALAPPUZHA-688 001.

¶20

EXCISE COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶21

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN.

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

P.S. GOPINATHAN, J.

¶24

= = = = = = = = = = = CRL.M.C. 235 OF 2012

¶25

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶26

DATED THIS, THE 7^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks an order to quash Annexure 3 crime and occurrence report alleging offence under Section 56(b) and 57(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The case was registered after taking samples of toddy from the toddy shop run by the petitioners who are accused 1 and 2. On analysis, the samples were found containing starch in addition to the permissible alcohol.

¶29

The petition is filed with a plea that no offence is made out because by Annexure A2 analytical data, the only objectionable item detected is presence of starch. It is not a prohibited or noxitious substance. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, no offence is made out.

¶30

CRL. M.C. 235/2012

¶31

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader would submit that investigation is in midway and this Court shall not interfere amidst the investigation process through an order under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners have no objection in proceeding with the investigation; but their apprehension is that on the pretext of Annexure A3 their licence would be cancelled. Such being the nature of dispute, I find that this petition can be disposed of with liberty to the investigating officer to proceed with the investigation and file the final report; but not to cancel the licence till a final report accusing any offence is filed.

¶33

In the result, this petition is disposed of with direction to the investigating officer to complete the investigation and file the final report as early as possible not later than six months from today. Till then,

¶34

CRL. M.C. 235/2012

¶35

the licence of the petitioners shall not be cancelled or anyway interfered in the running of the toddy shop.

¶36

P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE)

¶37

knc/-

¶38

CRL. M.C. 235/2012

¶39

P.S. GOPINATHAN, J.

¶40

= = = = = = = = = = = CRL.M.C. 235 OF 2012

¶41

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶42

DATED THIS, THE 15^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012

¶43

O R D E R

¶44

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was disposed by order dated 7.2.2012 directing the investigating officer to speed up the investigation and to file the Final Report within six months and till then the licence of the petitioner should not be cancelled or to interfere in the running of the toddy shop by order dated 7.2.2012.

¶45

The issue involved in this case is the presence of starch in the toddy seized from the toddy shop run by the petitioners. The issue is covered by the decision of this Court in Muraleedharan v. State of Kerala (2011(1) KLT 886). That aspect was not brought to my notice on 7.2.2012 when the case was taken up. Adding to that, the presence of starch in toddy is prohibited as per Notification SRO 145/2007 issued under G.O.(P) 24/2002/TD dated 30.3.2002. That was also not mentioned on 7.2.2012. It is in that circumstance, direction not to cancel the licence and not to interfere with the running of the toddy shop was ordered. Going through

¶46

CRL. M.C. 235/2012

¶47

the above Government Order and Notification, I do not find any ground to take a divergent view from the decision in Muraleedharan's case (supra).

¶48

In the above circumstance, the direction not to cancel the licence and to interfere with the running of the toddy shop in the order dated 7.2.2012 would stand vacated. The direction to the investigating officer to complete the investigation within six months would stand sustained.

¶49

Sd/P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE)

¶50

// True copy //

¶51

P.S. To Judge

¶52

knc/-

Santhappan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhappan 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

Sanil Kumar Vs the State of Kerala

V.U.Kunhammed Vs State of Kerala

Jomon Vs Valsamma Thomas

Rajalal C Vs State of Kerala

N.Sivaprakash Vs Reej Prakash

Anil Vs State of Kerala