V C THOMAS Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE ALLEPPEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ applications can be disposed of by a common judgment since the questions involved are identical and the petitioner in these cases is the same individual. The first of these relates to the contention that there is no manufacturing process involved in the making of fermented toddy for sale by a licensed abkari contractor. Manufacture is such a wide term that it would, I think, take in any changes, adaptations or modifications etc. that may be introduced, or effected in an article. In that wide concept of manufacture, it is clear that there is certainly adaptation taking place when sweet toddy is converted into fermented toddy for sale. These two are different in qualities. The fact that this process of change is effected without the help of machinery or even without the help of human agency, I think, is immaterial, for in Ardeshir H. Bhiwandiwala v. State of Bombay (1961 (II) LLJ 77), it has been held that letting sea water into pre prepared pans and allowing the same to evaporate under sun light and thus obtaining the salt involve a manufacturing process. Similarly abkari contractors may collect toddy from the trees and allow that to ferment. Even so, I think, there is a manufacturing process involved.

(2.) Counsel on behalf of the petitioner has invited my attention to the definition of the word toddy in the Abkari Regulation IV of 1073 under sub-s.(5) of S.3 which reads :

(3.) The contention is that toddy can either be fermented or unfermented but in either case, it is the juice drawn from the trees mentioned in the definition. The argument is that fermented or unfermented toddy can be drawn from the trees. I do not think this is correct. It is the juice that is drawn from the trees. This may be Toddy under the definition. But the fermentation takes place after it is drawn from the trees.