MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER TELLICHERRY Vs. V K KANARI VYDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals by the Commissioner, Tellicherry Municipality, involve the same question: whether Arishtams and Asavams are chemical preparations within the meaning of Schedule III to the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960 (Act XIV 1961). The respondents to these appeals were prosecuted by the Commissioner for storing Arishtams and Asavams in buildings within the Municipality without taking a licence therefor. The Sub Magistrate, Tellicherry, accepted their contention that Arishtams and Asavams are not chemical preparations and acquitted them. Hence these appeals.

(2.) It is well known that both Arishtams and Asavams are preparations made by the process of fermentation after addition of sugar, molasses or other sugary substance to Kashayams and medicinal solutions - the difference between the two being that the former is boiled before fermentation while the latter is not. Any text in Organic Chemistry would tell that fermentation is the slow decomposition by action of ferments or enzymes, of sugar in the liquid into alcohol and carbon dioxide gas. The gas first saturates the liquid and the excess is kept under pressure of cork or escapes causing frothing and bubbling of the liquid. There cannot be any doubt that fermentation is a chemical process and the alcohol and the carbonic acid gas that are responsible for the exhilarating properties of Arishtams and Asavams are products of that process. Anything specially prepared, whether food or medicine, may be a 'preparation'; and if it involves a chemical process it is a chemical preparation. Arishtams and Asavams are therefore strictly chemical preparations. It has been ruled by Govinda Menon, J. in Executive Authority of Vilakudy Panchayat v. Janardhana Rao ( 1964 KLT 441 ) that such preparations, being the products of a chemical process, are chemical preparations within the meaning of the parallel provision under the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960. We find no reason now to differ from that proposition. We affirm it. It then follows that the view of the Sub Magistrate in these cases is incorrect, and the acquittals based thereon have to be reversed. We therefore set aside the acquittal of the accused in each of these cases, find him guilty under S.355 read with S.284(1) of the Kerala Municipalities Act, and fine him Rs. 50, with two weeks' simple imprisonment in default, and direct the licence fee payable by him also to be recovered to be paid over to the Municipality as per S.363(11) of the Act. One month from today allowed for payment of the fine and the licence fee.