GODWIN GLANCY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenges the proceedings in S.C. No.519/2022 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Ernakulam arising out of Crime No.407/2020 of Palarivattom Police Station. Petitioner is the first accused in the said case and is facing an indictment, along with two other accused, for the offences under Sec. 13, 55(a) and 55(i) of the Abkari Act, 1077 apart from sec. 118(e) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 and sec. 4(2)(e)(j) read with sec. 5 of the Kerala Epidemic Diseases Ordinance, 2020 (for short 'KEDO').

(2.) Prosecution alleges that on 15/5/2020 the three accused were found in possession of 18.600 litres of liquor in 25 bottles of which one did not contain the seal of the Government of Kerala. The bottles were found in the trunk of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL07-CF-3055, parked in the parking lot of a private business concern, near the Ernakulam Bypass. It is also alleged that as the accused were standing outside the vehicle without wearing the facemask and without maintaining social distancing during the Covid pandemic, they were arrested and the bottles were seized.

(3.) Sri. P.C.Thomas, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions (i) the officer who filed the final report was not the authorised officer under law and therefore the prosecution is a non-est, (ii) the entire liquor allegedly seized was purchased from the Kerala Beverages Corporation and hence, there is no illicit liquor falling under sec. 55(a) or 55(i) of the Abkari Act and therefore at the most, only sec. 13 of the Abkari Act would be attracted, (iii) the uncontroverted allegations in the final report does not make out any offence as alleged, since there are no materials to connect the petitioner and the other accused with the possession of the liquor or with the car, (iv) the petitioner and the other accused were standing inside a private property, and hence the offensive provisions of KEDO cannot be attracted. On the basis of the above submissions, the learned counsel contended that the prosecution is an abuse of the process of law and is liable to be quashed.