Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Ratheesh Kumar vs The Excise Inspector on 16 June, 2010

Author: Antony Dominic

Bench: Antony Dominic

       

  

  

 
 
                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                PRESENT:

                          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

                  WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2012/3RD SRAVANA 1934

                                     WP(C).No. 15299 of 2012 (J)
                                     --------------------------------------

PETITIONER(S):
------------------------

          1. RATHEESH KUMAR,,
              S/O KRISHNAPPAN,PRAVEEN NIVAS,VARANADA.P.O
              KOKOTHAMANGALAM,CHERTHALA ,DIST.ALAPPUZHA.

          2. PRAKASHAN,
              S/O.DAMODARAN,THACHAPARAMBIL,POOCHAKKAL.P.O
              PANAVALLY,CHERTHALA TALUK,DIST.ALAPPUZHA.

             BY ADVS.SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM
                          SRI.R.MAHESH (KOTTAPPURAM)
                          SRI.M.MUKESH

RESPONDENT(S):
---------------------------

          1. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR,
              EXCISE RANGE OFFICE,KUTHIYATHODU RANGE
              ALAPPUZHA DIVISION,DIST.ALAPPUZHA-688533.

          2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
              CHERTHALA CIRCLE,CHERTHALA,DIST.ALAPPUZHA-688524.

          3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
              ALAPPUZHA DIVISION,ALAPPUZHA-688001.

          4. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
              COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE,GOVT.OF KERALA
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001.

          5. THE STATE OF KERALA,
              REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT.,TAXES DEPARTMENT
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001.

             BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.MOHAMMED SHAFI

            THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
            25-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

tss

W.P.(C) NO.15299/2012


                      APPENDIX




PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

P1:- COPY OF CERTIFICATE NO.7974 DATED 16.6.2010

P2:- COPY OF THE CRIME AND OCCURANCE REPORT NO.21/2012

P3:- COPY OF THE IST AND LAST PAGE OF THE LICENCE IN RESPECT OF T.S.NO.1

P4 :- COPY OF THE IST AND LAST PAGE OF THE LICENCE IN RESPECT OF T.S. NO.3

P5:- COPY OF THE IST AND LAST PAGE OF THE LICENCE IN RESPECT OF T.S.NO.3

P6:- COPY OF THE IST AND LAST PAGE OF THE LICENCE IN RESPECT OF T.S.NO.4

P7 :- COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 16.2.2012 IN I.A.2421 IN WP(C)765/2012

P8:- COPY OF APPLICATION VIDE C.M.P.1296/12 DATED `13.2.2012

P9:- COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM,NO.4907/2011 DATED 1/12/2012

P10:- COPY OF ORDER DATED 17.2.2012 IN C.M.P.1297/2012

P11:- COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 23.2.2012.LIN WP(C)765/2012

P12:- COPY OF APPLICATION VIDE C.M.P.4052/2012

P13:- COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.6.2012 OF THE MAGISTRATE.

P14:- COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE G.O.(MS) 130/2012 DTD. 19.7.2012.



RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS


       NIL


                                                     //TRUE COPY//


                                                     P.A. TO JUDGE



tss



                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                      ================
                    W.P.(C) NO. 15299 OF 2012
                   ===================

              Dated this the 25th day of July, 2012

                          J U D G M E N T

Petitioners were licencees of toddy shop Nos. 1 to 5 of Kuthiyathodu Excise Range. In 2010, sample was drawn from TS 4/2009-2010. In Ext.P1 certificate of analysis, presence of ethyl alcohol was certified to be 8.83%. Accordingly, OR No.21/12 alleging offence under Section 57(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act was registered against the petitioners. It is challenging the aforesaid proceedings, the writ petition has been filed.

2. Rule 9(2) and Rule 2(n) of the Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 have already been upheld by this Court in Komalan v. State of Kerala (2009 (2) KLT 744). Therefore the aforesaid proceedings cannot be interfered with in this writ petition. However, petitioners state that by Ext.P13 order, the Trial Court has already sent a set of sample for reanalysis and that the results are awaited.

3. In view of the above submission, it is clarified that if the report of reanalysis to be received is favourable to the petitioners, it will be open to the petitioners to seek discharge in WPC.No.15299/12 :2 : the criminal case and also claim the benefit of Rule 5(1)(a) of the Rules.

Clarifying the position as above, the writ petition is disposed of.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp