MANOHARAN PILLAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DOUBTING the correctness of the ratio in Kunhimoideenkutty v. State of Kerala (1988 (2) KLT 128), a learned Single Judge of this Court referred this matter to the Division Bench. According to the learned Single Judge, the following issues arise for consideration in these appeals against a verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence imposed on the accused persons under Clause 16 of the Kerala Kerosene Control Order read with S.3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act:

(2.) THE facts of the case are correctly and beautifully summarised by the learned Single Judge in the reference order. Therefore, we quote the same:

(3.) EXT . P 6 report of the Chemical Examiner shows that after conducting certain tests mentioned in the report, he came to the conclusion that the article in question is 'genuine kerosene'. But, it is not reported that Chemical Examiner has conducted the flame height test referred to in item 7. Flame height is also not mentioned in Ext. P 6 report. How flame height is to be determined is also mentioned in item 7. The learned counsel for the appellant Shri Vijayabhanu contended that whatever be the concept of 'kerosene' in ordinary parlance, in legal parlance and in scientific parlance, kerosene, for the purpose of a prosecution under the Kerosene Control Order, is nothing but a liquid which answers the flame test with a flame height of 18 m.m. or more. In the absence of evidence that the liquid seized had a flame height of 18 mm. or more, there cannot be a valid prosecution under Clause 16 of the Kerala Kerosene Control Order. It is true that a technical definition is adopted in the Order. When a word is defined in a particular manner and it does not suffer from want of clarity or precision, Courts need not search for the meaning of the word from dictionaries or common parlance understanding. In support of the above proposition, he relied on the decision reported in Kunhimoideenkutty v. State of Kerala (1988 (2) KLT 128). In that case, the Court was considering the very same question whether, in the absence of a scientific test to ascertain the flame height, the liquid can be held to be kerosene for the purpose of prosecution under the Kerala Kerosene Control Order. In paragraph 6 of the above Judgment, Mr. K. T. Thomas, J. (as he then was) observed as follows: