Allowed

Shaji Shekhar v. the Excise Commissioner

Kerala HC6 Feb 2024WP(C)/9107/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Licensed Ayush retailers apprehended while transporting Arishtams and Asavams from a licensed manufacturer faced Section 58A Abkari Act proceedings, license cancellation and confiscation. Holding the crucial ingredient—knowledge that preparations were intended as alcohol substitutes—absent, the Court quashed all proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Ext.P3 CR No.118/2020 and all further proceedings, setting aside Ext.P10 license cancellation, and quashing confiscation proceedings (Ext.P6).

Shaji Shekhar Vs the Excise Commissioner — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 5505 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SHAJI SHEKHAR

¶8

AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRASHEKARAN PILLAI,
SHAJI BHAVAN, PARAKOTTAM P.O., MUNDAPALLY MURI,
ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 691 551.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.M.KIRANLAL
SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
SRI.T.S.SARATH
SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, STATE OF KERALA, EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., NANDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

¶13

2 THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645.

¶14

3 THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, ADOOR - 691 554.

¶15

4 M/S. SMV HERBAL REMEDIES PVT.LTD. SASTHRI JUNCTION, KUNNIKKODE P.O., KUNNIKKODE, KOLLAM DISTRICT- 691 508. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

¶16

BY ADV SRI. MANU V (SR.GP)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.02.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).5311/2021, 9107/2021, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) Nos.5505, 5311 and 9107 of 2021

¶19

-:2:-

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶21

PRESENT

¶22

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 5311 OF 2021

¶23

PETITIONER:

¶24

SHAJI SHEKHAR

¶25

AGED 45 YEARS, S/O CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI,
SHAJI BHAVAN, PARAKOTTAM.P.O, MUNDAPALLY MURI, ADOOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691 551.

¶26

BY ADVS.

¶27

SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.M.KIRANLAL
SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
SRI.T.S.SARATH
SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR

¶28

RESPONDENTS:

¶29

1 THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER STATE OF KERALA, EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O, NANDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶30

2 THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, PATHANATHITTA-689 645.

¶31

3 THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, ADOOR-691 554.

¶32

4 M/S SMV HERBAL REMEDIES PVT.LTD, SASTHRI JUNCTION, KUNNIKKODE.P.O, KUNNIKKODE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 508, REPRESENTD BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

¶33

BY ADV SRI. MANU V (SR.GP)

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.02.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).5505/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

WP(C) Nos.5505, 5311 and 9107 of 2021

¶36

-:3:-

¶37

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶38

PRESENT

¶39

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶40

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945

¶41

WP(C) NO. 9107 OF 2021

¶42

PETITIONERS:

¶43

1SHAJI SHEKHAR
AGED 45 YEARS, S/O CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI,
SHAJI BHAVAN, PARAKOTTAM.P.O, MIUNDAPALLY MURI,
ADOOR,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691 551.

¶44

2 CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI,

¶45

AGED 73 YEARS, S/.O KESHAVAN,
SHAJI BHAVAN, PARAKOTTAM.P.O,
MKUNDAPPALLY MURI, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN-691 551.

¶46

BY ADVS.

¶47

SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN

¶48

SRI.M.KIRANLAL
SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
SRI.T.S.SARATH
SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR

¶49

RESPONDENTS:

¶50

1 THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER STATE OF KERALA, EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O, NANDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶51

2 THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, PATHANAMTHITTA -689 645.

¶52

3 THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, ADOOR-691 554.

¶53

BY ADV SRI. MANU V (SR.GP)

¶54

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.02.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).5505/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶55

WP(C) Nos.5505, 5311 and 9107 of 2021

-:4:-

‘C.R.’

J U D G M E N T

[WP(C) Nos.5505, 5311 and 9107 of 2021]

¶60

The petitioners are common in all these cases. The issues raised in these writ petitions are intrinsically connected and they can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. W.P (C) No.5311/2021 has been filed challenging Ext.P10 canceling a license issued to the 1^st petitioner under the provisions of the Spirituous Preparations (Control) Rules, 1969. W.P (C) No.5505/2021 has been filed challenging confiscation proceedings initiated against the petitioners. W.P (C) No.9107/2021 has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Ext.P3 Crime and Occurrence Report in CR No.118/2020 of Excise Range office, Adoor.

¶61

It is submitted in the bar that W.P(C) No.9107/2021 can be taken as lead case. Therefore exhibits

¶62

WP(C) Nos.5505, 5311 and 9107 of 2021

¶63

-:5:-

¶64

and documents referred to in this judgment are as they are marked as in W.P (C) No.9107/2021 unless otherwise specifically mentioned.

¶65

The brief facts necessary for consideration of issues arising in these writ petitions are that:-

¶66

The 1^st petitioner is the holder of Ext.P1 retail license for sale of Spirituous Preparations (Ayush). Exhibit P1 license was issued on 10-03-2020 and was valid upto 31-03-2021. The petitioners were engaged in the sale of Arishtams and Asavams and in respect of which Ext.P1 license had been issued to them. According to the petitioners, the 1^st petitioner had ordered certain Arishtams and Asavams from M/s. SMV Herbal Remedies Pvt. Ltd, Kunnikkode, a licensed manufacturer of Ayurvedic Medicines. Exhibit P2 is a copy of license of M/s. SMV Herbal Remedies Pvt. Ltd., Kunnikode. On 03-05-2020, while the petitioners were travelling on motor cycle with certain Arishtams and Asavams procured from

¶67

WP(C) Nos.5505, 5311 and 9107 of 2021

¶68

-:6:-

¶69

M/s. SMV Herbal Remedies Pvt. Ltd., they were apprehended by an Excise team and Ext.P4 mahazer was drawn up. A reading of Ext.P4 mahazer will indicate that upon receiving certain information that the petitioners were engaged in sale of Arishtams and Asavams intending them to be used as a substitute for alcohol or intoxicating drug, the Excise team went to the licensed premises of the 1^st petitioner. Since the premises were found to be locked and as they were leaving the premises a person who did not wish to be identified, followed the jeep of the Excise officials and informed them that the petitioners were procuring Arishtams and Asavams from a place called Puthenchanda and they were selling the same at a place called Thazhekavu. While the Excise team was proceeding to Puthenchanda they saw two persons (the petitioners herein) approaching from the opposite side on a motor cycle. It is alleged that on seeing the Excise officials the petitioners got jittery and the materials they were carrying on their lap fell on the road and it was noticed that several

¶70

WP(C) Nos.5505, 5311 and 9107 of 2021

¶71

-:7:-

¶72

small plastic bottles containing some Arishtams and Asavams were inside the packet being carried by the petitioners. It is alleged that on questioning it was revealed that a quantity of Arishtams and Asavams were also stored in a car belonging to the 1^st petitioner which was parked in a workshop. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations the license granted to the 1^st petitioner was revoked. The motor cycle and car belonging to the 1^st petitioner were confiscated and CR No.118/2020 of Excise Range office, Adoor was registered alleging violation of Section 58A of the Abkari Act, 1077.

¶73

The Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases would submit that the only substantive offence alleged against the petitioners is that under Section 58A of the Abkari Act. It is submitted that even if the entire allegations against the petitioners in the Crime and Occurrence Report (CR) as well as in the final report are accepted as true, it cannot be said that the petitioners have

¶74

WP(C) Nos.5505, 5311 and 9107 of 2021

¶75

-:8:-

¶76

committed an offence under Section 58A of the Abkari Act. It is submitted that the crucial element for an offence under Section 58A of the Abkari Act is that there must be sale of any preparation which a person knows or has reason to believe is intended to serve as a substitute for alcohol or intoxicating drug. It is submitted that since the 1^st petitioner was holder of a valid license for sale of Arishtams and Asavams and since the excise department has no case that any quantity in excess of the permitted quantity has been possessed by the 1^st petitioner, the offence under Section 58A of the Abkari Act will not be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that the proceedings are therefore an abuse of process of law and should be quashed as against the petitioners.

¶77

Sri. Manu V., the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would vehemently contend that the petitioners have not made out any case for

¶78

WP(C) Nos.5505, 5311 and 9107 of 2021

¶79

-:9:-

¶80

interference with the proceedings. It is submitted that the excise officials had received specific information that during the Covid-19 pandemic the petitioners were engaged in sale of Arishtams and Asavams clearly intending the same to be used as a substitute for alcohol. It is submitted that the petitioners have therefore clearly committed the offence punishable under Section 58A of the Abkari Act. It is submitted that the contentions now taken before this Court are matters for evidence and it will not be open to this Court to scan the evidence and materials on record to consider whether the offence as alleged has been made out or not. It is submitted that it is for the petitioners to prove their case before the competent criminal court and a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable to quash the proceedings. It is submitted that a final report has already been filed and there is no challenge to the final report. It is submitted with reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others; 2021 KHC 6371, that

¶81

WP(C) Nos.5505, 5311 and 9107 of 2021

¶82

-:10:-

¶83

the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash criminal proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is submitted that the said decision holds that the High Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial . It is submitted that the High Court while examining a case seeking quashing of an FIR should be concerned only with the prima facie material collected by the prosecution and at that stage the allegations do not require any proof. It is submitted that the said decision is also authority for the proposition that the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of the FIR and the material relied on by the prosecution. It is also submitted that when the investigation has been completed and final report has been filed, the Court is also required to consider the materials collected during the course of the investigation to see whether the offence has been made out. It is submitted with reference to the

¶84

WP(C) Nos.5505, 5311 and 9107 of 2021

¶85

-:11:-

¶86

judgments of the Supreme Court in Dhruvaram Murlidar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra; (2019) 18 SCC 191 and State of Haryana and Others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others; 1992 KHC 600, that the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that quashing of proceedings cannot be exercised except in the rarest of the rare cases and the power of this Court to quash criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is justified in the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments. It is submitted that the statements of witnesses forming part of the final report indicate that the petitioners were actually engaged in the sale of Arishtams and Asavams clearly intending the same to be used as a substitute for alcohol and thereby they have clearly committed the offence under Section 58A of the Abkari Act.

¶87

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, in reply, would submit that even a petition under Article

¶88

WP(C) Nos.5505, 5311 and 9107 of 2021

¶89

-:12:-

¶90

226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for quashing the proceedings as held by the Supreme Court in Kapil Agarwal and Others v. Sanjay Sharma and Others; (2021) 5 SCC 524. It is submitted that the filing of s the final report has no consequence and nothing prevent this Court from quashing the FIR (CR in the case) even after a final report is filed. He places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh; 2023 KHC 6809, in support of his contention. It is also submitted that going by the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Mamta Shailesh Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand and Others; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 136 , the Court, while exercising jurisdiction in a case, where quashing of criminal proceedings is sought on the ground that no offence is made out, should examine the facts of the case to determine whether any offence has been made out.

¶91

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶92

WP(C) Nos.5505, 5311 and 9107 of 2021

¶93

-:13:-

¶94

petitioners and the learned Senior Government Pleader, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to succeed. It is seen from the materials produced that the 1^st petitioner was holding a license for sale of Arishtams and Asavams. The 2^nd petitioner is the father of the 1^st petitioner. According to the petitioners, they were apprehended by the excise team while they were bringing Arishtams and Asavams from a licensed manufacturer to their shop for sale in terms of Ext.P1 license. Section 58A of the Abkari Act reads as follows:

¶95

“ 58A. For sale of certain preparations. -

¶96

Whoever sells any preparation which he knows or has reason to believe is intended to serve as a substitute for alcohol or intoxicating drug shall, on conviction before a competent court be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years, or with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees, or with both;

¶97

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply to the sale of any medicinal preparation for bona fide treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease in human beings or animals.”

¶98

WP(C) Nos.5505, 5311 and 9107 of 2021

¶99

-:14:-

¶100

It is settled law that penal statutes require strict interpretation. In order to make out an offence under Section 58A of the Abkari Act, the necessary ingredient is that the person/accused must be engaged in selling any preparation which he knows or has reason to believe is intended to serve as a substitute for alcohol or intoxicating drug. In the facts of the present case, as narrated above, it is clear that while the petitioners were apprehended, they had in their possession several Arishtams and Asavams, which they were carrying in a bag. The statements of the witnesses forming part of the final report tend to support the case of the petitioners that, while they were bringing Arishtams and Asavams after purchasing the same from a licensed manufacturer in their Car, the Car broke down and the autorikshaw that came for the purposes of carrying the goods to their shop, had refused to carry the same. It is thus that the 1^st petitioner had gone to his house to get his motor cycle. The statement of the workshop owner also indicates that the petitioners had contacted him stating that

¶101

WP(C) Nos.5505, 5311 and 9107 of 2021

¶102

-:15:-

¶103

their Car had broken down and it was on his instruction that they had left their Car in his workshop. The fact that there were Arishtams and Asavams in the Car also is no reason to indicate that the offence under Section 58A of the Abkari Act had been committed by the petitioners. As the crucial element for the offence under Section 58A of the Abkari Act is the sale of any preparation knowing that such preparation may be used as a substitute for alcohol or intoxicating drug, that crucial element does not appear to be present even if the entire case of the respondent is accepted. Coming to the contention of the learned Senior Government Pleader that since the final report has already been filed, the petitioners cannot seek to quash the Crime and Occurrence Report, I am of the view that in the light of the law laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Abishek (Supra) , the said contention cannot be accepted. It cannot be disputed that if the FIR/CR is quashed then all further proceedings including filing of the final report must be deemed to be not in accordance with the law. It is also

¶104

WP(C) Nos.5505, 5311 and 9107 of 2021

¶105

-:16:-

¶106

clear from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P.; 2023 KHC 6763, that the Court, while considering a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash criminal proceedings on the ground that no offence is made out, must scan through the facts and determine for itself as to whether the offence alleged is attracted, and when it comes to the conclusion that no offence is made out, even if the entire facts are believed to be true, the proceedings can be quashed. It is also clear from the aforesaid judgment that Court while exercising such jurisdiction need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation / registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. In the facts of the present case, I am clear in my mind that even if the entire facts alleged against the petitioners are believed to be true, no offence under Section 58A of the Abkari Act is made out.

¶107

WP(C) Nos.5505, 5311 and 9107 of 2021

¶108

-:17:-

¶109

Therefore, the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners will amount to an abuse of process of law.

¶110

In the light of the above finding, WP(C) No.9107 of 2021 is allowed and all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 will stand quashed. WP(C) No.5311 of 2021 is allowed by setting aside Ext.P10 order cancelling Ext.P1 license granted to the 1^st petitioner under the provisions of the Spirituous preparations (Control) Rules, 1969. WP(C) No.5505 of 2021 is allowed and the proceedings for confiscation (Ext.P6) will stand quashed.

¶111

Sd/GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶112

ats

¶113

WP(C) Nos.5505, 5311 and 9107 of 2021

¶114

-:18:-

¶115

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5505/2021

¶116

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶117

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE VIDE LICENSE
NO.AYUSHSPVII/2020/00980 OF THE PETITIONER.

¶118

EXHIBIT P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE SP VI LICENSE OF
M/S.SMV HERBAL REMEDIES PVT.LTD. KUNNIKKODE
DATED 06/05/2020.

¶119

EXHIBIT P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT IN CR
NO.118/2020 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, ADOOR
WITH CRIME AND OCCURRENCE REPORT.

¶120

EXHIBIT P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST MAHASAR DATED
03/05/2020 PREPARED AT 09.00 PM.

¶121

EXHIBIT P5THE TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND MAHASAR DATED
03/05/2020 PREPARED AT 10.20 PM.

¶122

EXHIBIT P6THE TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE NO.DP3-
1267/20 DATED 26/05/2020.

¶123

EXHIBIT P7THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 02/06/2020
TO THE EXT.P6 NOTICE.

¶124

EXHIBIT P8THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
17/11/2020 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH
RECEIPT.

¶125

EXHIBIT P9THE TRUE COPY OF THE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
REPORT NO.6221/2020 IN CR NO.118/2020 OF
ADOOR EXCISE RANGE.

¶126

WP(C) Nos.5505, 5311 and 9107 of 2021

¶127

-:19:-

¶128

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5311/2021

¶129

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶130

EXHIBIT P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE VIDE.LICENSE
NO.AYUSHSPVII/2020/00980 OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE SP VI LICENSE OF
M/S SMV HERBAL REMEDIES PVT.LTD., KUNNIKKODE
DATED 06.05.2020
EXHIBIT P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT IN CR.NO.118/2020
OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE,ADOOR WITH CRIME AND
OCCURRENCE REPORT
EXHIBIT P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST MAHASAR DATED
03.05.2020 PREPARED AT 09.00 PM
EXHIBIT P5THE TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND MAHASAR DATED
03.05.2020 PREPARED AT 10.20 PM
EXHIBIT P6THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EXC/3624/2020-
XC5/K.DIS DATED 15.09.2020 OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
21.12.2020 IN W.P(C)NO.25161/2020

¶131

EXHIBIT P8THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED
04.01.2021 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT EXCISE COMMISSIONER

¶132

EXHIBIT P9THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENTS OF
SRI.UDAYAKUMAR
EXHIBIT P9(A)THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF SRI.DINESH
KUMAR

¶133

EXHIBIT P10THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED VIDE
NO.EXC/3624/2020-XCS DATED 15.01.2021
REVOKING EXT.P1 LICENSE

¶134

EXHIBIT P11THE TRUE COPY OF THE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS REPORT
NO.6221/2020 IN CR NO.118/2020 OF ADOOR
EXCISE RANGE.

¶135

WP(C) Nos.5505, 5311 and 9107 of 2021

¶136

-:20:-

¶137

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9107/2021

¶138

PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS

¶139

EXHIBIT P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE VIDE.LICENSE
NO.AYUSHSPVII/2020/00980 OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE SP VI LICENSE OF M/S
SMV HERBAL REMEDIES PVT.LTD, KUNNIKKODE
DATED 06.05.2020
EXHIBIT P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT IN
CR.NO.118/2020 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE,ADOOR
WITH CRIME AND OCCURRENCE REPORT
EXHIBIT P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST MAHASAR DATED
03.05.2020 PREPARED AT 09.00PM
EXHIBIT P5THE TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND MAHASAR DATED
03.05.2020 PREPARED AT 10.20 PM
EXHIBIT P6THE TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE NO.DP3-
1267/20 DATED 26.05.2020
EXHIBIT P7THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 02.06.2020
TO THE EXT.P6 NOTICE
EXHIBIT P8THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
17.11.2020 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH
RECEIPT
EXHIBIT P9THE TRUE COPY OF THE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
REPORT NO.6221/2020 IN CR NO.118/2020 OF
ADOOR EXCISE RANGE.

¶140

Exhibit P10THE TRUE COPY OF THE final report IN CR
NO.118/2020 OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, ADOOR
WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS C.C NO.23/2022 ON
THE FILES OF JFMC, ADOOR

Shaji Shekhar v. the Excise Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaji Shekhar v. the Excise Commissioner

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

Sajith Vs Mohan K.G

. Cherian K.C. Vs the State of Kerala

Rajesh Kumar K.R. Vs the Joint Registrar (General) of Co-Operative Societies

Kala Mohan, Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Shekhar Vs the Excise Commissioner

Shaji Shekhar Vs the Excise Commissioner