S BALAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The maximum quantity of Indian made foreign liquor one can possess as per the notification G.O. (P) No.22/99/TD (S.R.O.No.127/99) dated 5.2.1999 issued by the Government of Kerala under Sections 10 and 13 of the Abkari Act is 1.5 litres. The same notification fixes the maximum quantity of toddy, beer, wine, foreign made foreign liquor and coco brandy one can possess. The table appended to the notification gives the details in that respect and the table is shown below: <FRM>18.htm</FRM>

(2.) The petitioner is an ex-serviceman. He after retirement from the Military Service, is now working as a civilian driver in the Military Engineering Services at the Naval Base, Kochi. Petitioner was made an accused in the crime alleging that he was found keeping in his possession in a big shopper 4 bottles each containing 450 ml. of Indian made foreign liquor. Crime 56 of 2002 was registered against him in Harbour Police Station alleging that he was found keeping in his possession Indian made foreign liquor in excess of the quantity he can possess as per the notification mentioned above. According to the petitioner, he did not commit any offence because he is an ex-serviceman who can possess 6 units of liquor at a time. The submission made for and on behalf of the petitioner is that the canteen permit issued to him says that he can purchases 6 units of liquor in a month. On the strength of the canteen permit issued to him the petitioner can purchase 6 units from the canteen at a time and hence he says that he can take home the 6 units of Indian made foreign liquor. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would point out Rule 13(8) of the Foreign Liquor Rules which says that licenses in Form FL 8 shall be issued by the Assistant Excise Commissioner on payment of an annual fee of Rs. 50/- and that the issue of every such license shall be protected to the Excise commissioner. Condition No.1 in Form FL8 license reads as follows:

(3.) Coming to Condition No.1 in FL8 license, what is said in that condition is that the privilege extends only to the possession, sale and distribution of foreign liquor, Indian made foreign liquor and beer brewed in India. The possession, sale and distribution made mention of in Condition No.1 is by the unit to which FL8 license is issued. In Condition No.1 the term and ex-servicemen was inserted by S.R.O.780/75 dated 9-9-1975. The attempt made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is to establish that by inserting the above term in Condition No.1 in 1975 it was made clear that ex-servicemen can also, possess foreign liquor, Indian made foreign liquor and beer under Condition No.1. But a close reading of Condition No.1 would go to show that the privilege to possess, sell and distribute foreign liquor is given to the unit to which FL8 license is issued. Before the insertion of the term and ex-servicemen what was there in Condition No.1 was that the distribution of foreign liquor, Indian made foreign liquor and beer brewed in India could be to the personnel attached to the Unit. In 1975 the words and the ex-servicemen were inserted for the purpose of making it clear that from that day distribution of liquor can be to the ex-servicemen also. Before the insertion of the above words what Condition No.1 said was that sale and distribution of liquor could be to the personnel attached to the Unit. So, the insertion of the words and ex-servicemen in 1975 was not for the purpose of giving the privilege of possession of Indian made foreign liquor by ex-servicemen. What Condition No1 says is that sale and distribution of liquor and beer could be to the .personnel attached to the .Unit and ex-servicemen. That condition does not, in any way, authorize personnel attached to the .Unit and ex-servicemen to possess any quantity of liquor or beer. Sale and distribution of liquor and beer in Condition No.1 can be only by the unit to which FL8 license is issued. On the strength of Rule 13(8) of the Foreign Liquor Rules and Condition No.1 in Form FL8 license an ex-serviceman cannot say that he can possess liquor in excess of the quantity mentioned in the notification issued by the Government of Kerala.