Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.23 seconds)Mariamma Jose vs The State Of Kerala
8. The counsel for the petitioners relying upon the decision in Mariamma v. State of Kerala (1998) 1 Ker LT 286, submitted that the offence, if any, alleged to have been committed by the petitioners will not attract the provisions of Section 55 of the Act and if at all, the offence will come within the ambit of Section 56(b) of the Act. In that judgment the matter which came up for consideration before this Court was whether the circulars issued by the Board of Revenue on 3-9-96 and 10-9-1996 stating that when it is detected that liquor in possession or in the course of sale is found to be diluted, crime should be charged under Section 55 of the Abkari Act. In that case on the basis of the submission made by the Advocate General on the basis of the earlier judgments passed by this Court that the offence will come only under Section 56(b) of the Abkari Act the learned single Judge found that the offence will come only within the ambit of Section 56(b) of the Abkari Act. The above decision is of no help to the petitioners in this case. In that case the question considered by this Court was whether the circulars issued by the Board of Revenue directing to register the case under Section 55 of the Act on finding that the liquor stored or sold by the licensees if found to be diluted. In this case the allegation made against the petitioners is that they have not only violated the provisions of the conditions of the licence issued to them, but they have also violated the order issued by the District Collector banning the sale of liquor on the particular day as provided under Section 54 of the Act. Therefore, the above argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioners, is not sustainable.
1