Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. As already noticed above, according to the learned Single Judge, the report of a Chemical Analysis as stipulated by Rule 8(3) of the Rules is a mandatory pre-condition for registering a crime. In order to decide the correctness of the above finding, it is first necessary to understand the scope of Rule 8 of the Rules. We notice that, the Rule appears in Chapter 7 of the Rules which deals with the "Procedure in taking samples from Toddy Shops or Foreign Liquor - 1 Shops". We extract Rule 8 in full for the sake of convenience of reference:

14. A reading of the above Rule leaves no doubt in our mind that the Rule is intended to prescribe the procedure for taking samples from Toddy Shops or Foreign Liquor - 1 Shops. A provision is required to be understood and its scope delineated, bearing in mind the context in which it has been placed. Rule 8 specifies the Officers who are competent to take samples, prescribes the manner in which such samples are to be taken, stipulates the quantity of the samples to be taken, the manner in which the samples are to be preserved, divided, sealed, secured, fastened and sent for chemical analysis. Sub- rule (3) of Rule 8 constitutes the last step in the procedure for taking such samples. It only provides that on receipt of the Chemical Analysis Report, if any violation of the provisions of the Abkari Act, Rules or conditions of licence or adulteration is noticed, a case shall be registered within 24 hours. In such an event, the sample that has been marked as 'B' has to be produced before the concerned court. If no case is registered, the said sample must be destroyed. The Rule does not seek to enact an interdiction against registration of a crime before such a Chemical Analysis Report is obtained. It is true that, according to the Rule, wherever the Chemical Analysis Report shows violation of the provisions of the Abkari Act, rules or conditions of license or any adulteration, a case shall be registered within 24 hours. The said mandate can apply only in a case where for some reason or other no crime was registered earlier. Therefore, a plain reading of the Rule does not justify a conclusion that, the obtaining of a Chemical Analysis Report is a sine qua non or a pre-condition for the registration of a crime under the Abkari Act. It is further required to be noticed that, an Excise Official is empowered to arrest a person and register a crime under various provisions of the Abkari Act. Section 34 of the Abkari Act which is one such provision, reads as under:-

22. A careful analysis of the above decisions leads us to the inevitable conclusion that the Excise Officials who are experienced in the field would be in a position to detect and identify contraband articles relying upon their sensory perceptions like smell, taste, etc. Such an identification would be sufficient for registering a crime and commencing investigation. As already found by us, Rule 8 only prescribes a procedure for taking samples. The said Rule cannot and does not control the powers of an Abkari Officer to register a crime wherever the commission of an Abkari offence is suspected or detected. The further contention of the counsel for the respondent that a licensee under the Act is treated differently from the other offenders cannot be accepted for the reason that none of the provisions provide for such a different treatment. In cases where a Report of Chemical Analysis is necessary, certainly the procedure prescribed under Rule 8 would have to be complied with. The power to register crimes under any of the substantive provisions of the Abkari Act already referred to above, is independent and is not controlled by Rule 8(3). The said powers conferred by the parent enactment cannot be limited or controlled by the said rule made in exercise of the rule making power conferred by the very same statute. Section 29 of the Abkari Act confers power on the Government only to make rules for implementation of the provisions of the Act.

24. The learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Girish Kumar v. State of Kerala [2010 (3) KLT 95] to contend that, this Court had held the provisions of Rule 8(2) and (3) to be mandatory. We notice from the facts of the said case that, the question there, was whether the taking of one sample alone had caused prejudice to the accused in the said case. It has been held by this Court that, the omission to take samples in accordance with the procedure prescribed by sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 8 had caused prejudice to the accused. The said contingency does not arise here for the reason that, in the present case, there is no allegation of violation of any of the provisions of Rule 8. Therefore, we find that the said dictum has no application to the facts of this case.