TITLE-  This case is related to interpretation statutes and implementation of secton 55 of the Kerala Abkari Act

CASE NAME-  MOHANAN vs. STATE OF KERALA

CITATION-  Crl Rev Pet No. 2747 of 2006

COURT-  High Court of Kerala

BENCH-  JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY, JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR

DECIDED ON - 12th December, 2006.

BRIEF FACTS :-

·        In this case the Mohanan is petitioner, and the state of kerala is respondent. The suit is heard by justice j.b.koshy, justice k.padmanabhan nair.

·        the offence punishable under section 55 of the Kerala Abkari Act, Act 1 of 1077, there was conflict between the decisions of the single Judges on section 55 of the Kerala Abkari Act.

·        Judges referred the following case Karthikeyan v. State of Kerala, Balan v. State of Mohanan vs State Of Kerala, George Issac v. State of Kerala and Sabu v. State of Kerala ,Surendran v. Excise Inspector , Mariamma and another v. State of Kerala and others, Rajeevan v. Excise Inspector and Purushan v. State of Kerala.

·        Counsel for the petitioners contented that the decision in Mariamma and another v. State of Kerala and others  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.

ISSUES:-

whether the circulars issued by the Board of Revenue to the effect that when it is detected that liquor in possession or in the course of sale by a licensee is found to be diluted, crime should be charged under section 55 of the Abkari Act.

Held :-

The court held the petitioner come to the offence committed Petitioner was caught while transporting toddy in a bicycle. He is a tapper by profession. He tapped the toddy from a licensed coconut tree. When a permanent tapper having licence to tap and transport was laid up, he was entrusted with that duty of tapping and transporting toddy to the licensed shop. The fact that while transporting the above toddy in bicycle, he was caught is proved by the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 the provisions existing at that time, no person or persons shall possess liquor exceeding 2.5 litres except under permit or licence. The toddy in his possession was not measured. DW1 is a permanent tapper. He deposed that he was not able to tap toddy on that day due to illness. Hence, he authorised the accused to tap toddy and take it to licensed shop on his behalf.

PW1 was not well on one day, a separate authorisation in his favour was taken is proved. Hence, it is not an offence under section 55 (a). He is a poor casual substitute tapper in an attached licensed toddy shop who tapped licensed trees. We also note that he was not charge-sheeted for offence under section 55 (d) or (e). In the above circumstances, we are of the view that instead of section 55 (a) read with section 55.

Case Laws :-

·        Karthikeyan v. State of Kerala,

·        Balan v. State of Kerala,

·        George Issac v. State of Kerala,

·         Sabu v. State of Kerala ,

·        Surendran v. Excise Inspector ,

·        Mariamma and another v. State of Kerala and others,

·        Rajeevan v. Excise Inspector

·        Purushan v. State of Kerala.