The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC quashing proceedings registered under the Abkari Act. The court held that taking only one sample for analysis violated mandatory Rule 8 of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002, following a precedent.
All further proceedings in pursuance of Annexure A Crime and Occurrence Report were quashed.
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. P.S.GOPINATHAN
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2012/12TH PHALGUNA 1933
Crl.MC.No. 460 of 2012 ()
CRIME NO.33/2011 OF KUTTAMPUZHA EXCISE RANGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5::
1. C.Y.SAJEEV, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O YOHANNAN, CHERUPARAMBIL HOUSE, THATTEKKADU DESOM KUTTAMPUZHA VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK.
2. JACOB MATHEW, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O MATHEW, THEKKEKARA HOUSE, RAMALLOOR KARA KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE AND TALUK.
3. P.B. SHIBUMON, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O BHASKARAN, PULLOLIL HOUSE, URULANTHANNI KARA KUTTAMPUZHA VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK.
4. V.P. THOMAS, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O PAILY, VENGAPPILLI HOUSE, NJAYAPPILLI KARA KUTTAMPUZHA VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK.
5. SIBI P. ELIYAS, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O ELIYAS, PULINATTU HOUSE, THRIKKALATHOOR KARA MULAVOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.)
SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENT /COMPLAINANT::
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, KUTTAMPUZHA EXCISE RANGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
DSV/-
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.
---------------------------------------Crl.M.C.NO. 460 OF 2012
---------------------------------------Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2012
O R D E R
In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the petitioners, who are
accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No.33/2011 of Kuttampuzha Excise Range for offence under Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act, assails Annexure A Crime and Occurrence Report registered by the Excise Inspector, Kuttampuzha.
Crl.M.C.NO. 460 OF 2012 2
analysis, as per Annexure C report, it was reported that the sample contained artificial sweetener saccharine. Ethanol content was reported below the level prescribed by the Food Safety and Standards Rules and Regulations, 2011. Consequently, Annexure A Crime and occurrence reported was registered.
Crl.M.C.NO. 460 OF 2012
3
The learned counsel in support of the argument relied upon the decision of this court in Gireesh Kumar V. State of Kerala (2010 (2) KLJ 444) wherein, in an identical case, this court quashed all further proceedings in pursuance to the case registered against the petitioner therein.
Crl.M.C.NO. 460 OF 2012
4
Government Pleader could not point out any thing to have a different decision than the one in Gireesh Kumar's case (Supra). In the above circumstance, following the above decision, I find that it would be appropriate to quash all further proceedings in pursuance to Annexure A.
In the result, this petition is allowed and all further proceedings in pursuance to Annexure A would stand quashed.
P.S.GOPINATHAN JUDGE
DSV/-
Crl.M.C.NO. 460 OF 2012 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings founded on a crime report violating Rule 8 of Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules mandating two samples can be quashed.
Whether the failure to take a second sample causes prejudice sufficient to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gireesh Kumar V. State of KeralaFollowed¶33
Gireesh Kumar V. State of Kerala (2010 (2) KLJ 444)
3 provisions across 3 enactments
C. Y. Sajeev
Jacob Mathew
P. B. Shibumon
V. P. Thomas
Sibi P. Eliyas
State of Kerala
P. S. Gopinathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
