ABBAS Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is accused in Crime No.212 of 2011 of Karunagappally Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act and Clause 16 of the Kerala KeroseneControl Order, 1968. It is alleged that on 22.01.2011 petitioner was found unauthorisedly stocking 630 liters of blue kerosene in three barrels without authority. The police is said to have seized the said quantity of kerosene along with two empty barrels, measurement pots, etc., as per a mahazar drawn at the scene of occurrence. PETITIONER would contend that he has not committed any offence. According to the petitioner by virtue of Exts.P4 to P10, permits the fishermen referred to therein were allowed to collect kerosene from the Depot and, those fishermen executed Exts.P2 and P3, agreements in favour of petitioner authorising him to collect kerosene on their behalf, keep the same and deliver it at the places where those fishermen are.According to the learned counsel, kerosene seized from petitioner was not meant for sale and no offence is involved. It is also contended that since kerosene stocked by petitioner is meant for the fishermen referred to in Exts.P4 to P10 and under Exts.P2 and P3 petitioner is obliged to deliver the same to those fishermen, the kerosene in the custody of police may be returned to the petitioner on appropriate conditions. I have learned Public Prosecutor also.

(2.) THE question whether the defence set up by petitioner is acceptable and if so any offence is made out, is not a matter which this Court is required to decide in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. That is a matter which the trial court has to decide. Hence I do not intent to go into that question.