Allowed

Dr.D.Ramanathan v. Circle Inspector

Kerala HC12 Jan 2016Crl.MC/335/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashes the criminal proceedings against the petitioner for alleged violation of the Medicines and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duty) Act, 1955. The Court allowed the petition because contradictory chemical analysis reports rendered a conviction impossible under the beneficial rules of penal law.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous case and all further proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.657/2013 are quashed.

Dr.D.Ramanathan Vs Circle Inspector — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/22ND POUSHA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 335 of 2015

¶6

C.C.NO.657/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1, SULTHAN BATHERY.

¶7

PETITIONER(S) :

¶8

DR.D.RAMANATHAN, S/O.LATE DEVARAJA IYER, HOUSE NO.24/550/1, JANANI NIVAS, CHELAT LANE, PUTHOOL P.O., THRISSUR.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.NELSON JOSEPH SRI.M.D.JOSEPH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR, EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE, SULTHAN BATHERY, PIN- 673 592.

¶12

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.MAYA

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Msd.

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 335 of 2015

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶19

ANNEXURE-A1: TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSPORT AGREEMENT ENTERED BY THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE WITH THE COMPANY.

¶20

ANNEXURE-A2: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET ALONG WITH THE CRIME AND OCCURRENCE REPORT FIELD BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN CC 657/2013.

¶21

ANNEXURE-A3: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS REPORT ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL CHEMICAL LAB, KOZHIKODE, SHOWING THE PRESENCE OF 13.98% ETHYL ALCOHOL.

¶22

ANNEXURE-A4: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE TEST REPORT ISSUED BY THE CHEMICAL EXAMINERS LAB AT TRIVANDRUM.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶29

¶30

Crl.M.C. No.335 of 2015

¶31

Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2016

¶32

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

¶34

Petitioner is the accused in CC No.657/2013 of

¶35

the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Sulthan Bathery, which has arisen from OR No.5/2013 of Sulthan Bathery Excise Range Office, for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Medicines and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duty) Act, 1955.

¶36

Certain quantity of 'Amritharishtam' manufactured by the petitioner was seized when it was being transported. The first sample taken from the seized 'Amritharishtam' was found containing 13.98% of ethyl alcohol, on chemical analysis. In cases wherein the quantity of ethyl alcohol in ayurvedic preparations/medicines exceeds 12%, such

¶37

Crl.M.C.335/2015

¶38

: 2 :

¶39

persons are liable to pay excise duty and, therefore, it will be a violation of Section 7(b) of the said Act, which constitutes an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 months or fine of ₹2,000/- or with both.

¶40

As per Section 13 of the Act, punishment is prescribed for connivance at offence. In this particular case, Section 13 has no application at all. With regard to the offence under Section 7(b) of the Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that when the second sample was subjected to chemical analysis, the quantity of ethyl alcohol was found to be 7.34% only, as is evident from Annexure-A4. Matters being so, at any stretch of imagination, the petitioner cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 7(b) of the Act, when two contradictory reports are there with regard to the same matter. The first sample was found containing 13.98% of ethyl alcohol, whereas the second sample, which was taken at the very same time, was found containing only 7.34% of

¶41

Crl.M.C.335/2015

¶42

: 3 :

¶43

of ethyl alcohol. In such case, being a penal provision, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Any successful prosecution cannot be continued in the matter. There is no chance for any conviction in the light of the two contradictory reports. Matters being so, the prosecution in the case as against the petitioner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Sulthan Bathery is quite unnecessary and, therefore, it is liable to be quashed.

¶44

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.657/2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Sulthan Bathery, which has arisen from OR No.5/2013 of Sulthan Bathery Excise Range Office, are quashed.

¶45

Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶46

aks/13/01

¶47

// True Copy //

¶48

PA to Judge

Dr.D.Ramanathan v. Circle Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.D.Ramanathan v. Circle Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramanan Vs State of Kerala

J.Sunny Lopez Vs Asha Thomas

Lalan Vs M.S.Sandeep

Joemon Vs Suresh Babu

Musthafa Kooloth Peedikayil Vs the State of Kerala

Muhammed Sirajuddeen Vs the State of Kerala