K.R.VIJAYA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the proprietor of M/s.Haritha Pharmaceuticals, an Ayurvedic Medicine manufacturing proprietorship functioning for the past 26 years. Petitioner is holding L2 Licence under the Medicinal Preparation Rules as well as SP VI and SP VII Licences under the Kerala Spirituous Preparations (Control) Rules, 1969 (for short 'the Rules') for running wholesale and retail trade of ayurvedic medicines. True copies of the wholesale licence and retail licence held by the petitioner for possession and sale of Spirituous Preparations are produced alongwith the petition on hand as Annexures I and II. M/s.Haritha Pharmaceuticals is run under the proprietorship of the petitioner for the past 26 years and it gained recognition as one among the premier ayurvedic medicine manufacturing units in the State of Kerala. It has been awarded with certificate of excellence for its performance.

(2.) While Ayurvedic medicines were transported in petitioner's vehicle on 14/12/2021, the Excise Inspector of Kuttampuzha Excise Range intercepted the vehicle and directed the driver of the vehicle to take the vehicle to the Excise Office on the premise that the transportation of the medicines was in violation of Rule 9 and 10 of the Rules. Therefore, alleging that the petitioner has committed offences punishable under Ss. 63, 56(b) and 67B of Abkari Act (for short 'the Act'). Crime No.51/2021 was registered against the petitioner for the above offences, true copy of which is produced alongwith the petition on hand as Annexure VII. Petitioner's vehicle and the Ayurvedic medicines boarded in it were taken into custody. An inventory of the articles seized was prepared by the 3rd respondent. Seizure mahazar was also prepared from the spot. True copies of the aforesaid documents are produced alongwith the petition on hand as Annexure VIII and IX. Vehicle seized has been transferred to the 2nd respondent and confiscation proceedings are pending.

(3.) It is submitted that Crime above registered against the petitioner is purely an abuse of process of law by the respondents and therefore, is illegal.