PRABHAKARAN Vs. EXCISE INSPECTOR ALATHUR RANGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Power of Abkari Officers to file complaints when samples taken during inspection conducted under S.32 of the Kerala Abkari Act (Act No. 1 of 1077) are found to be adulterated with noxious substances before amendment of the Act by Act No. 16 of 1997 is the question to be considered in this case. A contention was raised by the petitioners that in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in Suraj v. Excise Inspector ( 2001 (1) KLT 169 SC), entire proceedings are illegal since power of the Abkari Officers under S.32 was not considered by the Supreme Court in the above decision and one of us (K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.) sitting in single referred the matter to the Division Bench. For understanding the question, we may now refer the facts of the case first.

(2.) Petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 2/96 of Alathur Excise Range on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrates Court, Alathur. They are Salesman, Power of Attorney Holder and licensee respectively of toddy shop No. 78/96-97 of Alathur range. Samples of toddy was taken from their shop and on analysis it was found that it contained Chloral Hydrate, a hypnotic drug, and it was unfit for human consumption. Excise Officers came to the conclusion that offence under S.57A of the Abkari Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was attracted and hence Annexure I report was filed before the Magistrates Court and the above is challenged in this case.

(3.) S.57A of the Abkari Act is as follows: