Allowed

Pradeep v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jul 2023Crl.MC/2321/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal miscellaneous petition was filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash the final report in C.R. No.99 of 2014 concerning alleged offences under Sections 56(b) and 57(a) of the Abkari Act. The court held that since the presence of starch alone without any adulterant enhancing intoxication does not attract the offence, the petition was allowed and the report quashed.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-A-III Final Report in C.R.No.99 of 2014 and all further proceedings pending as SC No.189/2018 were quashed.

Pradeep Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE19THDAYOFJULY2023/28THASHADHA,1945

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 2321 OF 2020

¶6

C.R. NO.99 OF 2014 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA NOW PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IRINJALAKUDA

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2 :

¶8

1PRADEEP
AGED47YEARS
S/O.SANKARANARAYANAN,VALUPARAMBILHOUSE,
MUKUNDAPURAMTALUK,THRISSURDISTRICT.

¶9

2V.S.SUDARSANAN,
AGED53YEARS
S/O.SUBRAMONIAN,VADAPPARAMBILHOUSE,
EDAKKULAMDESOM,POOMANGALVILLAGE,
MUKUNDAPURAMTALUK,THRISSURDISTRICT.

¶10

BYADVM.C.JOHN

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶12

STATEOFKERALA
REPRESENTEDBYPUBLICPROSECUTOR,
HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,ERNAKULAM,
COCHIN-682011.

¶13

SRI.VIPINNARAYAN,SR.PP

¶14

THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
19.07.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.M.C No.2321 of 2020

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition is filed invoking the powers of this Court under

¶19

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity).

¶20

The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.R. No.99 of 2014, registered by the Excise Range Inspector, Irinjalakuda. They have approached this Court seeking to quash Annexure A-III final report in C.R. No.99 of 2014 of the Excise Range Inspector, Irinjalakuda, now pending as SC No.189/2018 on the files of the Principal Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda.

¶21

The prosecution allegations, as borne out from the records, are as under:

¶22

On 09.09.2014 at about 6 p.m., the Excise Preventive Officer, Irinjalakuda Range, entered the toddy shop in which the 1st petitioner was the manager and the 2nd petitioner was the licensee and took samples. A sample is alleged to have been sent for chemical examination, and it was on the basis of the chemical analysis report that the test for starch is positive, C.R. No.99 of 2014 of the Excise Range, Irinjalakuda was registered for the offences punishable under Sections

¶23

Crl.M.C No.2321 of 2020

¶24

¶25

56(b) and 57 (a) of the Abkari Act.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted

¶27

that the presence of starch in the toddy intended for sale would not attract the offence under Sections 56(b) and 57(a) of the Abkari Act.

¶28

I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and have

¶29

considered the submissions.

¶30

The registration of the crime was on 09.09.2014. The copy of the analysis report made available discloses that the percentage

¶31

by volume of ethyl alcohol in the sample seized is 4.70. The analyst has also noted that “Starch”, an adulterant, was detected in the sample. It is seen from the report that the sample was found free from any noxious ingredients which are injurious to health.

¶32

In Balu v. State of Kerala [2007 (1) KLT 401], this

¶33

Court had occasion to hold that when there is no whisper of an allegation that starch is an ingredient likely to add to the actual or apparent intoxicating quality of strength of toddy, the ingredients of Section 56(b) cannot be held to be attracted, and consequently, the offence under Section 56(b) also would not be attracted. The principles

¶34

laid down in Balu (supra), applies to the facts of the instant case and

¶35

Crl.M.C No.2321 of 2020

¶36

¶37

therefore, the petitioner is entitled to succeed.

¶38

Resultantly, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A-III Final Report in C.R.No.99 of 2014 of the Excise Range Office, Irinjalakuda, and all further proceedings against the petitioners pending as SC No.189/2018 on the files of the Principal Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda,

¶39

are quashed.

¶40

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶41

¶42

Crl.M.C No.2321 of 2020 5

¶43

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2321/2020

¶44

PETITIONERANNEXURES:

¶45

ANNEXUREA1TRUEPHOTOCOPYOFMAHAZARDATED09.09.2014.
ANNEXUREAIITRUECOPYOFTHECRIMEANDOCCURRENCEREPORT
NO.C.R.99/2014DATED09.10.2014OFTHEEXCISE
INSPECTOR,IRINJALAKKUDA.
ANNEXUREAIIITRUECOPYOFTHEFINALREPORTDATED26.02.2016
JFCM,IRINJALAKKUDA.

Pradeep v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep 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

Robiin C.George Vs State of Kerala

Vidhu Krishnan R.S Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Noushad Vs State of Kerala

Prasanna.T.K Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Mubarak @ Mubarak Vs State of Kerala