RAJENDRAN PILLAI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners who are accused in crime No. 265 of 2019 have approached this Court seeking the following relief:-

(2.) Against the petitioners, crime No. 265 of 2019 was registered by Kunnicode Police Station alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 15C read with Section 63 of the Kerala Abkari Act (for short the Act). Investigation was conducted in the crime and a final report was prepared and laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court III, Punalur, which was taken on file by the court as S.T. No. 1794 of 2019.

(3.) The contention of Sri. B. Mohan Lal, the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the prosecution proposed to rely on a Certificate of Drunkenness obtained from a medical practitioner associated with Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Punalur, the certified copy of which is appended to this petition as Annexure-A5 to establish its case. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to entry No. 10 in Annexure-A5 where smell of breath was reported as positive and entry No. 18 to submit that the urine and blood of the petitioners were not taken and preserved for chemical examination. It is contended by the learned counsel that to establish an offence under Section 15C of the Act beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution must conduct an Alco Meter test or else hold an examination of blood of the petitioners in a Laboratory. According to the learned counsel, in the case on hand, the only material available to connect the petitioners with the offence is Annexure-A5 and the prosecution has totally relied on smell of breath certified as positive therein to charge-sheet the petitioners for the offence under Section 15C of the Act. The learned counsel has also relied on Mukesh v. State of Kerala [2018 (3) KLT 386] to rest his contention. An argument was also advanced that as indicated from the allegations in the charge-sheet, the consumption of liquor was inside a car and it being not a public place, the offence is unlikely to be attracted and holding trial in the case for the offence will only be a futile exercise.