THANKACHAN Vs. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS, 3 in number, seek anticipatory bail since they fear arrest on the allegation that they committed offence u/s. 57 A of the abkari Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(2.) THE allegations made against them in short are as follows:-- Petitioners 1 and 2 were abkari contractors for arrack shops bearing nos. 20 to 30 at Neeleswaram Range . Third petitioner was the manager of the godown. Three samples were taken from the arrack godown 21/87-88 on 11-8-198 7. Samples were sent to Chemical Examiner, Government Regional Office at Calicut for analysis. THE report received by the Circle Inspector of Excise on 26-2-198 8 shows that one sample contained methyl alcohol and other two samples had lesser content of alcohol. THEreupon notice was issued calling upon them to show cause why action including that for cancellation of the licence should not be initiated. Petitioners filed their objections. It is alleged that petitioners 1 and 3 agreed to have the offences relating to the sample being of less or strength compounded. THEy did not state any thing regarding the presence of methyl alcohol in the sample. As per legal opinion given by Asst. Public Prosecutor offence under S. 56 (b) alone cannot be compounded since petitioners are found to have committed offences u/ss. 56 (b) and 57a (3) of the Act.

(3.) IN Para. 13 of the affidavit filed by the Circle inspector of Excise it is averred that on 14-6-1989 the second petitioner appeared before him and stated that he was not involved in the business of arrack except giving a solvency certificate and power of attorney to his son, the first petitioner. When this fact was communicated to his superior officer, the Asst. Excise Commissioner, that officer directed to get, the opinion of the government Pleader to absolve the second petitioner from the case. Accordingly the Excise INspector got advice from the Government Pleader to delete the second petitioner from the array of parties and to cite him as a witness in the proceedings. Thus even on the respondent's own showing second petitioner is not liable for any offence under the Act.