IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 34932 of 2001(H)
1. CHANDRA MOHAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :18/12/2008
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
O.P. No. 34932 of 2001
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 18th December, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is challenging Exts.P1 to P6 proceedings initiated
against the petitioner in C.C.Nos. 608/2000, 185/2001, 187/2001 and
267/2000 on the files of the Judicial I Class Magistrate’s Court-II
Neyyattinkara and S.C.Nos. 1004/2001 and S.C.No. 151/2001 on the
files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara in
Thiruvananthapuram district. The allegations against the petitioner in
all those cases is that on analysis of the samples of toddy taken from
the petitioner’s toddy shop, they contained ethyl alcohol in excess of
the quantity prescribed. Prior to the introduction of the Rules of
2002, there was no stipulation in the Rules as to the limit of ethyl
alcohol which toddy can contain. The limits were prescribed in Rule 9
(2) of the Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 2002. The
validity of that Rule itself was under challenge in a batch of writ
petitions in which this Court upheld the validity of Rule 9(2).
However, in appeal before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court in
the decision of State of Kerala v. Unni, 2007(1) KLT 151 (SC) 151,
reversed the same and held that Rule 9(2) of the Abkari Shops
(Disposal in Auction) Rules, 2002 is unworkable, vague and
unreasonable and no prosecution would lie on the basis of that Rule.
In the impugned proceedings, there is no allegation that the petitioner
is guilty of mixing toddy with ethyl alcohol. The only finding is that
O.P. No. 34932/2001 -: 2 :-
the toddy sample contained ethyl alcohol in excess of the prescribed
limit. In view of the decision in Unni’s case (supra), I am satisfied
that the prosecutions are not sustainable.
Accordingly, the original petition is allowed and the impugned
proceedings are quashed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/