E RUKMANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition praying to call for the records and to quash the FIR in Crime No.768 of 2002 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Washermanpet, PEW Police Station, Chennai.

(2.) The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is as follows: On 22.08.2002 at 5.00p.m. during prohibition raid near Mattu Mandai Railway Gate, Thiruvottriyur, the Inspector of Police, PEW, Washermanpet Police Station intercepted a Stationery Canter Van bearing Registration Number TN29 W 3232 when some men and women were found unloading some boxes. On seeing the police party, some of those persons escaped and 5 males and 3 women were apprehended by the police. A1 to A7 were arrested. On interrogation A1 produced bills and vouchers and stated that the material on load was phenoil and bleaching powder etc., On suspicion, the materials were opened and checked and found 10 Iron barrels containing 18000 Karnataka Sachets 100ml each, 10 plastic canes containing 4750 Karnataka Sachets 100ml each, 18 gunny bags containing 600 Karnataka Sachets 100ml in each gunny bag total containing 10800 Karnataka Sachets, 2 gunny bags containing 500 Karnataka Sachets in each gunny bag total containing 1000 Karnataka Sachets, 51 card board boxes each card board box containing 900 Karnataka Sachets in each containing 45,900 Karnataka Sachets and one cardboard box containing 600 Karnataka Sachets and in total there were 81,050 Karnataka Sachets i.e., 8105 liters of Arrack. A1 confessed that the Arrack sachets were supplied by the petitioner an arrack god own owner at Malur in Kolar District near Bangalore in Karnataka State. He also confessed that the bills and vouchers were bogus in nature and the van was owned by one Shanmuga Sundaram of Hosur. Therefore, a case in Crime No.768 of 2002 under section 4(1-A) aaa TNP Act r/w 328, 465, 471, 420 IPC& r/w 34 IPC was registered. After investigation the respondent filed a charge sheet against A12 to A17 for the alleged offence under section 120B IPC and 4(i)(aaa), 4(1-A) TNP Act, 465, 468, 471, 420 IPC r/w 120 B IPC wherein the petitioner herein is arrayed as A-16. Aggrieved over the same the petitioner has filed this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend (1) that except the confession statement of the accused, there is no other material to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime, (2) that the arrack sachets seized on 22.08.2002 are admittedly bearing the seal of Karnataka Government, which means they are the arrack supplied by the Karnataka Government to be sold in that State and selling arrack in the state of Karnataka is not an offence and (3) that when the said sachets purchased in Karnataka were subjected to chemical analysis, no poisonous substances including atropine was found whereas atropine was found only in three samples taken 10 days later in Horlicks bottles subsequently and therefore the petitioner should be discharged from the case.