The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of search and seizure under S.31 of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1077 was not confined to the specified offences mentioned in the first part of the section, and that the Excise Inspector could file a report regarding the commission of any other offence in addition to or in lieu of the specified offence if valid samples were collected.

1. Leave to appeal is granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.

2. These appeals arise from judgments and orders of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Cr1.M.C. Nos. 2409/97, 431, 435, 444 and 448/98, 502, 503, 504 and 506/97, 4000, 2158, 2159/97, 791/98 and 788/98, passed on May 19,1998.

3. The common question that arises for consideration in these appeals, is: whether the impugned proceedings initiated against the appellants on the basis of samples collected from their shops under S.31 of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1077 (before its amendment in 1997) are liable to be quashed under S.482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Briefly stated, the following facts give rise to these appeals.

4. In 1993, under S.31 of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1077 (for short, 'the Act') the Excise Inspectors of various ranges of Kerala State, collected samples from the liquor shops of the appellants who were licensed to carry on the business of liquor. The Excise Inspectors lodged complaints against the appellants under various provisions, including S.57A, of the Act alleging, inter alia, that the samples show adulteration of liquor or intoxicating drugs with noxious substance. The learned Magistrates took cognizance of the offences. The appellants then moved the High Court by filing Crl.M.Cs. to have the proceedings, initiated on the report of the Excise Inspector, quashed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Crl.P.C.'). They were dismissed by the High Court on the date noted above. It is from those orders that the present appeals arise.

5. Mr. Mahendra Anand, the learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos of 2000(3) SLP Nos. 692-95/99 & 1708-10/99), contended that on the date the Excise Inspector collected the samples from the shops of the appellants under unamended S.31 of the Act, he had no authority to do so in respect of the offence under S.57A of the Act, so no prosecution for the said offence can be launched against them based on such collection of material. Mr. Anand has argued that if the last part of S.31 is to be interpreted as authorising search for offences not mentioned in the first part then specifying offences in the first part will become redundant. His further contention is that the first part contains offences which are triable by a Magistrate whereas the offence under S.57A is triable by a Court of Session for which no machinery was provided on its insertion in the Act till 1997 when S.31 was amended. S.50 of the Act was substituted and S.50 A was inserted to provide for trial of offence under S.57A. As such before 1997 collection of samples under S.31 and booking of cases for violation of S.57A, not being within the contention of the Act, was illegal. The proceedings are, therefore, liable to be quashed. After insertion of S.50A, if the offence under S.57A, alleged to have been committed in 1993, is permitted to be tried now, it would amount to giving retrospective effect to S.50A which, in the absence of any specific provision, will be impermissible. Mr. Sukumaran, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos of 2000 (03 SLP Nos. 3312-15/98,1536/99 & 1537/99) canvassed for the plea that collection of samples under S.31 for prosecution under S.57A was illegal. He invited our attention to S.63, 64 and 67 of the Act to urge that under the scheme of the Act before amendment of 1997, offences under the Abkari Act were minor offence triable by a Magistrate for which maximum punishment prescribed was less than two years and they were also compoundable; but an offence under S.57A is a grave offence triable by Court of Session. He contended that a search qua offence

S.57A was different from a search qua any of the offences mentioned in the first part of S.31 and, therefore, on the material collected during the search in respect of the said offences, no prosecution for violation of S.57A can be launched. He submitted that amendments of some provi