Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. It is on this premises the prosecution alleges commission of offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 [hereinafter, for short, 'P.C.(Amendment) Act, 2018'] by the accused in the crime.

6. The prime contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire allegations are baseless. According to him, as per the prosecution allegations, the quantity of the liquors as shown in Annexure A5 were transported from Thripunithura to Palluruthi. As per Serial No. 20 in Annexure A5, 36 bottles 7 2026:KER:15671 of DDUS Joan of Arc VS Brandy 1000 ml each having hologram Nos.6656584 to 6656619, with green colour, were transported from Thripunithura to Palluruthi as on 18.12.2024. Then the entire quantity of 36 bottles were unloaded at Palluruthi and were entered in the stock register of Palluruthi Foreign Liquor Shop, as could be seen from Annexure A7, item No. 469. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the transported items, as per Annexure A5, reached as per Annexure A7, the allegation of the prosecution that two bottles among the same having hologram Nos. 6656610 and 6656609 (in the report while narrating this number, an omission occurred and the number was stated as '665609' and both sides concede the correct number as '6656609') were recovered from the petitioner herein during surprise check is an outright impossibility. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Annexure A9 produced by the petitioner, along 8 2026:KER:15671 Crl.M.Appln.No.1/2026, would show that the petitioner had filed six reports against the defacto complainant on finding that the old stocks were kept by him without selling the same, after selling the new items, and thereby, loss was sustained to the Government. It is pointed out that, in view of the animosity arose out of these reports, this case has been foisted without support of any material.

8. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that insofar as, Annexure A2 surprise check report is concerned, the Inspector of Police sought assistance of the Regional Manager, Supplyco, Regional Office, Ernakulam, Sri.Santhosh Kumar and he is an officer having acquaintance with the sale of liquor and other procedures and therefore, it could not be said that there is violation of the guidelines issued under G.O.(P) No. 65/92/Vig. dated 12.05.1992. It is specifically pointed out that in this case, two bottles of DDUS Joan of Arc VS Brandy of 1000 ml each, bearing hologram Nos. 6656610 and 6656609 were recovered from the office of the first accused and the staff who has been working in Kerala 10 2026:KER:15671 Beverages Corporation Limited, Fort Kochi Branch given statement that on getting stock of 36 numbers of DDUS Joan of Arc VS Brandy of 1000 ml each, the Excise Circle Inspector through one Hareesh H., an Excise Official of the Circle Inspector, (It is under this Excise Inspector, Beverages Corporation, Palluruthi Branch situates) met him and demanded that there was a practice of giving liquors to the officers and according to him, on the said premises Hareesh H., demanded two bottles of DDUS Joan of Arc VS Brandy of 1000 ml each to the petitioner and accordingly, two bottles of DDUS Joan of Arc VS Brandy of 1000 ml each having hologram Nos. 6656610 and 6656609 were entrusted to him. It is pointed out that it was thereafter on surprise check, the above brandy bottles were recovered from the office of the petitioner along with two other bottles of other brand. Moreover, the two bottles of DDUS Joan of Arc VS Brandy of 1000 ml each having hologram Nos. 6656606 and 6656608 were 11 2026:KER:15671 recovered from Sabu Kuriakose, another officer of the Excise and it was found that those bottles of liquor were transported from Thripunithura to Palluruthi. It is pointed out further that, thus the prosecution case is prima facie made out and in this case, quashment of FIR at this stage is liable to fail.

9. On the crux of the matter, it could be seen that on getting a complaint filed by Sri. Amal Krishna B, Manager FL 09 Warehouse, Petta, Thripunithura Branch on 18.12.2024, the Circle Inspector, VACB, conducted a surprise check along with the Assistant Regional Manager, Supplyco, the Regional Office, Ernakulam, Sri. Santhosh Kumar and on search of the office of the first accused, two bottles of DDUS Joan of Arc VS Brandy of 1000 ml each, with hologram Nos. 6656610 and 6656609 were recovered from the petitioner. In this connection, Anoop Antony, who has been working as a staff in Palluruthi, Beverages Corporation Outlet given statement 12 2026:KER:15671 that these items including two other items were handed over to the petitioner by him. As regards the demand and acceptance of brandy bottles, as alleged in this case, no doubt, the same is an illegal gratification or an undue pecuniary advantage. As per the FIR, it was stated that Brandy bottles were demanded while transporting, but the prosecution records would show that the same were demanded and accepted by the accused including the petitioner, after reloading the same in Palluruthi.