Appellants were accused in Sessions Case No.329 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court - Adhoc). Kottayam for having committed offences under section 55 (a) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The allegation was that accused persons were found transporting 13.9. litres of Indian, made foreign liquor in an autorickshaw bearing registration No. KL-5/3037 on 23-12-1999 in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act. Defence of the accused was total denial. However, from the evidence available, the court found that the accused were guilty of the offence. The contention of the respondent is that even if the allegations are proved, the offence will come only under section 63 of the Abkari Act. From the evidence available in this case, it cannot be disputed that the appellants carried 13.6. litres of liquor in the autorickshaw. As per Government orders issued under the Abkari Act at that time only 1.5.litres of liquor can be possessed and transported by a person except under licence. Even if the contention that the three persons involved were carrying 1.5 litres of liquor each is accepted also, they were carrying above the permissible limit. The first information statement and recovery mahazar Exts.P1. P2 oral evidence show that there was a function of housewarming in the first appellant's house and this liquor was purchased form the Kerala State Bewerages Corporation for the purpose of the party in connection with the house warming function of the first accused. It was transported through the autorickshaw. (It is submitted that petitioners are not very rich so as to afford a car or taxi car for transportation of the same.) Admittedly, they were carrying excess quantity of liquor. But, Exts.P1 and P2 show that the liquor was purchased from kerala State Bewerages Corporation and they were having bills for the same. Recovery mahazar specifically states about the same. The above liquor was also not intended for subsequent sale.

2. Heading of section 55 (a) is "For illegal import etc". Section 55 (a) is as follows:

"55. For illegal import, etc: - Whoever in contravention of this Act or of any rule or order made under this Act.

(a) imports, exports transports, transits or possesses liquor or any intoxicating drug: or-

(b) manufactures liquor or any intoxicating drug;

(c) omitted;

(d) taps or causes to be tapped any toddy-producing tree; or

(e) draws or causes to be drawn toddy from any tree; or

(f) constructs or works any distillery, brewery, winery or other manufactory in which liquor is manufactured; or

(g) uses, keeps or has in his possession any materials, still utensil, implement or apparatus whatsoever for the purpose of manufacturing liquor other than toddy or any intoxicating drug; or

(h) bottles any liquor for purpose of sale; or

(i) sells or stores for sale liquor or any intoxicating drug; shall be punishable

(1) for any offence, other an offence falling under clause (d) or clause (e), with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which shall not be less than rupees one lakh; and

(2) for an offence falling under clause (d) or clause (e), with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.

Explanation: - For the purpose of this section and section 64A, "intoxicating drug means any intoxicating substance, other than a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance regulated by the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Central Act 61 of 1985), which the Government may by notification declare to be an intoxicating drug."

Therefore, it can be seen that fine amount is minimum Rs. One lakh. The punishment itself suggests that section 55 (a) is intended for very serious offences.

3.As stated in Maxwell “the headings prefixed to sections or sets of sections in some modern Statutes are regards as preambles to those sections. They cannot control the plain words of the Statute, but they may explain ambiguous words." (See