GEORGE ISSAC Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.M.C.4557/2003 is filed by the third accused and the other criminal miscellaneous case is filed by Accused Nos.2 and 4 in Crime 654/2003 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam for quashing the first information report. The petitioner in Crl.M.C. 4557/2003 and the first petitioner in the other Crl.M.C. are partners in the partnership firm which runs Hotel Embassy in Ernakulam. The second petitioner in Crl.M.C. 4678/2003 is an employee in Hotel Embassy. Crime 654/2003 was registered in Central Police Station, Ernakulam under S.55(a) and (i) of the Abkari Act. The allegation is that on 1.9.2003, a day on which the licensed premises for sale of liquor in respect of all the licences issued shall remain closed being the first day of an English calendar month, liquor was being sold in Room No.27 in the first floor of Hotel Embassy and thereby petitioners committed offences under S.55(a) and (i) of the Act. It is stated that there was F.L.3 licence issued for conducting sale of liquor in the above hotel.

(2.) According to the petitioners, it is only for the purpose of wreaking vengeance upon them because they did not meet the illegal demands made by the investigating officer that they were falsely implicated in the crime. Annexure 2 is the copy of a complaint filed by the petitioner before the Police Commissioner stating that the petitioners were falsely implicated in the crime. One of the grounds the petitioners would urge for quashing the proceedings is that they were falsely made accused in the crime because the investigating officer is having grudge towards them since they did not pay heed to the illegal demands made by him. The submission made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners is that a report about the enquiry conducted on Annexure-2 complaint may be obtained by this Court and that report also may be taken into consideration for quashing the proceedings. It is not necessary that such a report has to be obtained for deciding these petitions. It is not proper on the part of this Court to quash the first information report on the basis of a report obtained from the police on the enquiry conducted on Annexure-2 complaint.

(3.) Another ground urged is that the offences under S.55(a) and (i) of the Act are not made out. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is only in respect of violation of conditions of licence issued by the authorities and hence, the offence will only be under S.56(b) of the Act.