PRASAD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the licensee in respect of a few toddy shops under the Thodupuzha Excise Range of the State Government. He purchased the right to vend toddy in the said shops in accordance with the provisions contained in the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 (the Rules). On 02.11.2016, a case was registered against the petitioner by the third respondent under Sections 56(b) and 57(a) of the Abkari Act, alleging that the sample of toddy taken from one of the toddy shops run by the petitioner on 12.09.2016 contained Poly Vinyl Acetate. Ext.P3 is the crime and occurrence report in respect of the said case. The petitioner is not entitled to run toddy shops if a case is registered against him under Sec. 57(a) of the Abkari Act. As such, immediately upon registration of the case, the licence issued to the petitioner to run the toddy shops was suspended. According to the petitioner, a case cannot be registered against him under Sec. 57(a) of the Abkari Act on the ground that the sample of toddy contained Poly Vinyl Acetate. It is his case that Poly Vinyl Acetate is neither a drug nor an ingredient which is likely to add the actual or apparent intoxicating quality or strength of the toddy and that therefore, the presence of the said article in the toddy would only amount to adulteration of toddy. According to the petitioner, toddy is a food article coming within the purview of the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSS Act) and since standards have been prescribed for toddy under the FSS Act by virtue of the provisions contained in the Food Safety Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011, the standards prescribed for toddy by the State Government under the Abkari Act do not have the force of law any more, especially in the light of the overriding effect given to the standards prescribed for food articles under the FSS Act by virtue of Sec. 89 of the FSS Act. The case set up by the petitioner is that if the standards prescribed for toddy under the Abkari Act do not have the force of law, there cannot be any prosecution under the said Act for adulteration of toddy. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a declaration that a case cannot be registered under Sec. 57(a) of the Abkari Act on the ground that the toddy offered for sale is adulterated in as much as it contained Poly Vinyl Acetate. The petitioner also seeks orders quashing Ext.P3 crime and occurrence report on that basis.

(2.) Two statements have been filed by the third respondent in this matter supporting the registration of the case against the petitioner under Sec. 57(a) of the Abkari Act.

(3.) Heard Sri. Renjith B. Marar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. V. Manu, the learned Senior Government Pleader.