Allowed

Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Sept 2016Crl.MC/5125/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the Final Report in a case under the Abkari Act because the crime was registered in the wrong excise range and investigated by officers lacking jurisdiction under the relevant notification. The court held proceedings illegal due to jurisdictional errors.

What did the court decide?

Annexure A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in S.C. No. 434/2014 before the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta are quashed.

Anil Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/7TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 5125 of 2016 () --------------------------SC 434/2014 of DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA ----------PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4: --------------------------------

¶6

1. ANIL KUMAR, S/O.SUKUMARAN NAIR AGED 45 YEARS, SANTHA NIVAS, POOZHIKKADU, PANDALAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶7

2. MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI THENGUMVILAYIL ARYABHAVAN, PERUMPULICKAL, KURUMBALA VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶8

3. RADHAKRISHNA KURUP AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVA KURUP, EDAPURAYIL HOUSE, NEEROZHICKAL, KOORAMPALA VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

4. GOPAKUMAR, S/O.GOPINATHAN PILLAI AGED 43 YEARS, JYOTHI VILLA, KUDASANADU P.O, PANDALAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SRI.R.RANJITH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ALEX M.THOMBRA

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 5125 of 2016 ()

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE CRIME AND OCCURRENCE REPORT IN C R NO.72 OF 2013 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, CHITTAR. ANNEXURE A2: THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED IN OR NO.72 OF 2013 OF CHITTAR EXCISE RANGE. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶24

................................................................ CRL.M.C. No. 5125 of 2016

¶25

............................................................... Dated this the 29^th day of September, 2016

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Annexure A1 crime and occurrence report has been registered by the Excise Inspector of Chittar alleging offences punishable under Sections 55(a) and 67(B) of the Abkari Act. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 27.12.13 at 5.30 p.m., they were found transporting 3.625 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act. Even though the incident had occurred within the Nilackal Excise Range, the crime was registered at the Chittar Excise Range. Strangely enough, the investigation was conducted by the Circle Inspector attached to the Anti-Narcotic Special Squad, Pathanamthitta, who filed Annexure A2 Final Report.

¶28

As per notification SRO 361 of 2009, all officers

¶29

CRL.M.C.No. 5125 of 2016

¶30

-: 2 :-

¶31

of the Excise Department, not below the rank of Assistant Excise Inspectors, are appointed as Abkari officers to perform the acts and duties mentioned in Sections 40 to 53 of the Abkari Act, within the areas for which they are appointed. Here, in this particular case, the crime itself was registered in violation of the aforesaid notification. Over and above it, the investigation was conducted by the officer who is not authorised by the said notification. Apart from that, the final report has also been filed by an officer who is not appointed for the area from where the seizure was effected. Matters being so, the entire exercise made by the excise officers are illegal and no purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter.

¶32

Presently, the case is pending as S.C.No.434/2015 before the Sessions Court,

¶33

Pathanamthitta. Therefore, this Court is of the view that Annexure A2 final report and all further proceedings pursuant to it in S.C.No.434/2014 of the Sessions Court,

¶34

CRL.M.C.No. 5125 of 2016

¶35

-: 3 :-

¶36

Pathanamthitta are liable to be quashed.

¶37

In the result, this Criminal M.C. is allowed and Annexure A2 final report and all further proceedings pursuant to it in S.C.No.434/2014 of the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta are hereby quashed.

¶38

Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.

¶39

ul/-

¶40

// true copy //

¶41

P.S. to Judge.

Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babu Vs State of Kerala

Radhakrishnan @ Babu Vs State of Kerala

Jayamohan G.S Vs State of Kerala

Ruby Enterprises Vs Jojo Mathew

Chandran @ Chandra Swami Vs State of Kerala

P.Lekshmanan Vs Central Bureau of Investigation