Licence to run a toddy shop has been granted to the fifth respondent in a sale conducted on 20-4-2002. According to the petitioner he was not entitled to get the licence in terms of Rule 5(3) (i) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules 2002 as a first information report was registered against him based on a police complainant, on 14-4-2002. The petitioner complained about the grant of licence in favour of the fifth respondent before the District Collector, Kottayam alleging violation of the said Rule. The District Collector rejected that complainant after dealing with it in detail as per Ext. P5 order, finding that the case against the fifth respondent was only at investigation stage and it had not been substantiated that the fifth respondent has been “either charged with an offence or proceedings is pending against him before a court of law.” It is in the above circumstances Ext.P5 is impugned in this Original Petition. The petitioner submits that the view taken by the District Collector in Ext.P5 is contrary to the statutory provisions contained in Rule 5(3)(i) of the said Rules and the pronouncement of this court in Albert v. State of Kerala (1965 K.L.T. 865(FB)). It is further contended before me that the word "charge" used in the said Rule cannot we ascribed the meaning that the said term has in the relevant provisions on Criminal Procedure Code. It is submitted relying on Sec. 211 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the said Full Bench decision in Albert's case that the word "charge" shall be taken as meaning only a complainant. Therefore the Collector, based on the first information report registered against the fifth respondent on 14-4-2001 ought to have found that a charge had been laid against the fifth respondent on an abkari offence and therefore he was ineligible in terms of the said Rule to obtain a licence for the conduct of a toddy shop.

2. The said Rule reads as follows:-

"5(3):- No person is eligible for the privilege of any shop if:

(i) he is charged with an offence relating to illicit liquor or prosecution proceeding are pending against the said person before any court of law"

It is an admitted case before me by counsel for the petitioner that no proceedings could be said to be pending against the fifth respondent by merely filing a first information report in relation to an alleged offence. So what remains to be considered is whether the fifth respondent was at the relevant time "charged with an offence relating to illicit liquor".2. The charge shall be relating to an offence evengoing by the said rule. Offence means ciriminal offence. Necessarily the meaning that shall be ascribed to the word "charge" relating to an offence shall have the same meaning as contained in Criminal Procedure Code on the basis of which trial on the said charge shall be conducted. So the contention of the petitioner that the word "charge" shall have a meaning different to that contained in Criminal Procedure Code cannot be accepted.

3. Of course the decision of the Full Bench in Albert's case while referring to the word "charge" appearing in Sec. 211 of the Indian Penal Code had interpreted that the circumstances relating to an offence it can be even a complainant of a first information report. It has relevance to the ingredients of the offence under Sec. 211 which appears in Chapter No.11 of Indian Penal Code relating to offence relating to giving false evidence and evidence against public justice. It is in that circumstance the Full Bench interpreted the word "charge" as having the meaning of first information.

4. On the other hand the word used in Rule 5(3) (i) is in relation to a person charged with an offence touching illicit liquor. Therefore, there shall be a charge on the offence relating to illicit liquor. In that regard, necessarily, we have to consider what is meant by a charge in terms of the Criminal procedure Code.

5. The charge is in detail with in Chapter XXVII of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973. As per