JUDGMENT

K. RAMASWAMY, J.- Leave granted in SLPs Nos. 10248, 9079, 13769 of 1994 and SLP No. ... (CC No. 25558 of 1994).

2. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, by its common judgment dated 10-12-1993 in OP No. 4637 of 1989 and batch since upheld the constitutionality of Sections 57-A and 57-B inserted by the Abkari (Amendment) Act 21 of 1984 into the Abkari Act 1 of 1077 (for short the Act), the correctness of that judgment is questioned in this appeal.

3. The facts lie in a short compass: The appellants are licensees of arrack or Indian-made foreign liquor retail shops or their employees. They have been charged for offences punishable under one or other sub-sections (1) to (3) of Section 57-A for having mixed or permitted mixing of noxious substance with liquor or for having failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent such mixing or for being in possession of liquor in which such a noxious substance has been mixed with the knowledge that arrack or Indian-made foreign liquors were mixed with methanol (methyl alcohol), a substance which, on consumption, is likely to endanger human life or causes grievous hurt to human beings or causes death. Therefore, when the appellants were charged for all or any of the offences in one or the other case, before competent criminal courts, the constitutionality of the said two provisions of the Amendment Act was assailed.

4. It is the case of the appellants that though they are dealers in arrack or Indian-made foreign liquors either selling in retail shops or under their management, such arrack or Indian-made foreign liquor was being supplied by the appropriate agencies controlled by the State or regulated under the Act. They secured the supply only from those recognised sources in sealed bottles or containers. They did not mix noxious substance nor permitted mixing of any noxious substance with arrack or Indian-made foreign liquor. As such, there was no occasion for them to take any reasonable precaution to prevent such mixing or for being in possession of such arrack or liquor mixed with noxious substance with such knowledge and that, therefore, they had not committed all or any of the offences. However, before being proceeded with the trial of the offences they filed writ petitions under Article 226 challenging the constitutionality of the aforesaid two provisions, which as said earlier, were upheld by the High Court.

5. Section 3(10) of the Act defines liquor as including spirits of wine, methylated spirits, spirits, wine, toddy, beer, and all liquids consisting of or containing alcohol. Section 3(14) defines "intoxicating drugs" to mean (i) the leaves, small stalks and flowering or fruiting tops of the Indian hemp plant (Cannabis Sativa L), including all forms known as bhang, siddhi or ganja; (ii) charas, that is, the resin obtained from the Indian hemp plant, which has not been submitted to any manipulations other than those necessary for packing and transport; (iii) any mixture, with or without natural materials, of any of the above forms of intoxicating drug, or any drink prepared therefrom; and (iv) any other narcotic substance which the (Government) may, by notification, declare to be an intoxicating drug, such substance not being opium, coca leaf, or a manufactured drug, as defined in Section 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930. Sections 6 to 11 in Part III regulate import, export and transport of liquor or intoxicating drug by a permit issued in that behalf. Part IV deals with manufacture, possession and sale of liquor or intoxicating drug in accordance with the provisions of the Act. (Vide Sections 12-A and 12-B.) Sub-section (2) of Section 12-B expressly postulates that "no person shall possess any preparation containing liquor or intoxicating drug, other than a medicinal preparation for the bona fide treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease in human beings or animals, in excess of the quantity specified by the Commissioner". Section 13 prohibits possession of liquor