VARGHESE SACHARIA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Against the petitioner who is the third accused, allegations were raised initially under Section 56(b) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The crux of the allegation is that higher percentage of ethyl alcohol was found to be present in the toddy offered for sale in the toddy shop of which he is the licensee. There is an allegation that arrack was mixed in the toddy. Altogether there were three accused. Other two accused were released on bail at the stage of investigation, it is submitted. The petitioner was not available for arrest. Investigation is now complete. Final report has already been filed. In the final report, allegations are raised interalia under Sections 8, 55(a) and 56(b) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The petitioner has not entered appearance so far. Warrant of arrest issued by the learned Magistrate is chasing him. He has, in these circumstances, come to this court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C with the prayer that the proceedings against him may be quashed. Additionally and alternatively, it is prayed that the learned Magistrate may be directed to release the petitioner on bail when he appears and applies for bail.

(2.) I have carefully considered the allegations raised against the petitioner and his contentions in defence of those allegations. I shall scrupulously avoid any detailed discussion or expression of opinion on the acceptability of the contentions. I am certainly of the opinion that the petitioner must and can raise all these contentions to claim discharge at the appropriate stage under Section 227/228 Cr.P.C. Suffice it to say that I do not find any reasons which can persuade this court to invoke its extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Coming to the question of grant of bail, it is for the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate and claim bail. I find absolutely no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the application for bail to be filed by the petitioner on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. Every court must do the same. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary. Sufficient general directions have been issued in Alice George vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339].