Dismissed

Syamkumar, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jan 2020Crl.MC/8478/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala refused to quash the criminal proceedings regarding alleged toddy transport violations. It held that premature termination of the investigation was unwarranted given the suspicion of record manipulation and lack of valid permit for the occurrence date, directing a deeper probe.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of crime and occurrence report and First Information Report dismissed.

Syamkumar, Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 26TH POUSHA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.8478 OF 2019(H)

¶6

CR NO.88/2019 OF Nooranad Excise Range , Alappuzha District

¶7

PETITIONERS/Accused Nos.1 to 3:

¶8

1 SYAMKUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS S/O.PODIYAN, VASU BHAVANAM, CHARUMMOODU MURI, NOORANADU VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK.

¶9

2 DEEPU. AGED 24 YEARS S/O.KARUPPASWAMI, ALEXANDRIYA ESTATE HOUSE, PADAGIRI MURI, NELLIYAMPATHI VILLAGE, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

3 BIJU, AGED 39 YEARS S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, SOPANAM HOUSE, MADATHIKARAIMA MURI, OOCHIRA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

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

¶14

SRI AJITH MURALI-PP

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-01-2020, THE COURT ON 16-01-2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

Crl.M.C.No.8478/2019

¶18

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J

¶19

************************ Crl.M.C.No.8478 of 2019

¶20

Dated this the 16^th day of January, 2020

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioners are the accused in the case registered as C.R.No.88/2019 of the Nooranad Excise Range under Section 56(b) of the Abkari Act, 1077.

¶23

The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is as follows: The

¶24

first accused is the licensee of some of the toddy shops in Group No.II of the Nooranad Excise Range. He holds permit for transporting 450 litres of toddy in the vehicle KL-09 AF 1125 or KL-08 AU 7738. On 07.09.2019, at 12.45 hours, at the Mavelikkara Excise Circle Office, the quantity of toddy loaded in the vehicle KL-09 AF 1125 was got recorded as 420 litres. Subsequently, at 14.00 hours on the same day, when the Excise Circle Inspector inspected the aforesaid vehicle at toddy shop No.10/19-20 of the Nooranad Excise Range, where the toddy had

¶25

¶26

Crl.M.C.No.8478/2019

¶27

to be supplied or unloaded first, the quantity of toddy loaded in the vehicle was found only 300 litres. On suspicion that manipulation of record was made at the Mavelikkara Excise Circle Office with regard to the quantity of toddy actually loaded in the vehicle, with the intention to subsequently adulterate the toddy, the Excise Circle Inspector registered a case as C.R.No.88/2019 of the Nooranad Excise Range. He arrested the second accused who was the driver of the vehicle and the third accused who was travelling in the vehicle and seized samples of the toddy.

¶28

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for

¶29

quashing the proceedings against the petitioners in the aforesaid case on the ground that the offence punishable under Section 56(b) of the Abkari Act would not lie against them on the basis of the allegations contained in the crime and occurrence report registered by the Excise Circle Inspector.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

¶32

first petitioner had permit for transporting 450 litres of toddy and

¶33

Crl.M.C.No.8478/2019

¶34

¶35

the fact that he had transported only a lesser quantity of toddy will not attract the offence punishable under Section 56(b) of the Abkari Act.

¶36

Section 56(b) of the Abkari Act provides the punishment

¶37

for violation of the conditions of licence or permit granted to a licensee under the Act. Prima facie, the fact that only a lesser quantity of toddy than allowed by the licence or permit granted was transported, will not attract the offence punishable under Section 56(b) of the Abkari Act.

¶38

However, Annexure-C permit produced by the petitioners shows that the validity of the permit in the name of the first accused was for the period from 04.07.2019 to 17.07.2019. The occurrence was on 07.09.2019. The petitioners have not produced any document to show that the first petitioner had permit or licence for the period covering the date on which the occurrence took place.

¶39

Even if it is assumed that the permit granted in the name of the first accused has been renewed or its validity has been extended and even if he holds a permit for transporting 450

¶40

¶41

Crl.M.C.No.8478/2019

¶42

litres of toddy, the matter does not end there. The quantity of toddy being transported in the vehicle KL-09 AF 1125 was got recorded at the Mavelikkara Excise Circle Office as 420 litres. But, when the vehicle reached the first toddy shop where the toddy had to be supplied or unloaded, the actual quantity of toddy in the vehicle was only 300 litres. What was the purpose of manipulation of the record regarding the quantity of toddy at the Excise Circle Office, Mavelikkara? It is suspected that the purpose was adulteration of the toddy and making up the actual quantity of toddy to 420 litres. Therefore, a deeper probe is required in the matter. Premature termination of the investigation by quashing the crime and occurrence report at this stage is not warranted in the circumstances of the case. If at all an offence punishable under Section 56(b) of the Abkari Act is not committed, it requires investigation to find out whether any other offence under the Abkari Act has been committed.

¶43

It is not proper to quash the first information report at the stage of infancy of investigation without giving opportunity to the investigating officer to conduct an effective investigation and

¶44

¶45

Crl.M.C.No.8478/2019

¶46

before it reaches its logical conclusion (See Rafiq Ahmedbhai

¶47

Paliwala v. State of Gujarat: AIR 2019 SC 1537 ).

¶48

In the aforesaid circumstances, I find that the prayer for quashing the crime and occurrence report at this stage cannot

¶49

be allowed. The petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶50

11.Consequently, the petition is dismissed. It is made clear that this order will not preclude the petitioners from challenging

¶51

the final report, if any, which may be filed against them after the investigation of the case.

¶52

(sd/-)

¶53

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE

¶54

jsr

¶55

APPENDIX

¶56

PETITIONERS'EXHIBITS:

¶57

ANNEXURE A	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED 07/09/2019.
ANNEXURE B	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CRIME AND OCCURRENCE REPORT IN CR.NO.88/2019 REGISTERED BY NOORANADU EXCISE RANGE.
ANNEXURE C	TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE TODDY TRANSPORT
	PERMIT DATED 03/07/2019 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD.

¶58

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶59

TRUE COPY PS TO JUDGE

Syamkumar, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syamkumar, 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

Nazeer Vs State of Kerala

S.Sreekumar Vs C.R.Ramachandran

Sanal Busher Vs State of Kerala

Praveen Raj Vs State of Kerala

Paul Antony Vs M/S. Maniankot Advertising Company

Shakeer, Vs State of Kerala