A N VIJAYAN Vs. EXCISE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Licence to run a toddy shop has been granted to the fifth respondent in a sale conducted on 20.4.2002. According to the petitioner he was not entitled to get the licence in terms of R.5(3)(i) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 as a first information report was registered against him based on a police complaint, on 14.4.2002. The petitioner complained about the grant of licence in favour of the fifth respondent before the District Collector, Kottayam alleging violation of the said Rule. The District Collector rejected that complaint after dealing with it in detail as per Ext. P5 order, finding that the case against the fifth respondent was only at investigation stage and it had not been substantiated that the fifth respondent has been either charged with an offence or proceedings is pending against him before a court of law. It is in the above circumstances Ext. P5 is impugned in this Original Petition. The petitioner submits that the view taken by the District Collector in Ext. P5 is contrary to the statutory provisions contained in R.5(3)(i) of the said Rules and the pronouncement of this Court in Albert v. State of Kerala ( 1965 KLT 865 (FB)). It is further contended before me that the word charge used in the said Rule cannot be ascribed the meaning that the said term has in the relevant provisions in Criminal Procedure Code. It is submitted relying on S.211 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the said Full Bench decision in Alberts case that the word charge shall be taken as meaning only a complaint. Therefore the Collector, based on the first information report registered against the fifth respondent on 14.4.2001 ought to have found that a charge had been laid against the fifth respondent on an abkari offence and therefore he was ineligible in terms of the said Rule to obtain a licence for the conduct of a toddy shop.

(2.) The said Rule reads as follows: -

(3.) Of course the decision of the Full Bench in Alberts case while referring to the word charge appearing in S.211 of the Indian Penal Code had interpreted that the circumstances relating to an offence it can be even a complaint or a first information report. It has relevance to the ingredients of the offence under S.211 which appears in Chapter No. 11 of the Indian Penal Code relating to offence relating to giving false evidence and evidence against public justice. It is in that circumstance the Full Bench interpreted the word charge as having the meaning of first information.