1. On 21/4/2007, Excise Inspector at Mallappally Excise Range took samples of toddy from Shop No. 9 of Group No.4 of Mallappally Excise Range. Even before getting the report of chemical analysis, Crime No.11/2007 was registered. Petitioners, the accused, approached this court to quash the registration of the case by filing Crl. M.C.1694/2007 contending that registration of the case is pre-mature, as though the sample was sent for examination, report was not received. By Annexure-C order, this court recording the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that no action will be taken against the petitioners before receipt of the report of Chemical Examination from the Forensic Science laboratory and no adverse consequence whatsoever will take place or be initiated against them till a report is received, allowed Crl.M.C in part, making it clear that notwithstanding the registration of crime No.11/2007, no further proceedings shall be taken against the petitioners and petitioners shall not be visited with any adverse consequence on the basis of registration of crime. Annexure-D report was received subsequently from the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram which shows that ethyl alcohol was detected in the sample and percentage of ethyl alcohol is 21.19 percent by volume of ethyl alcohol. As the report is against the petitioners and finding that second sample was not available to be examined at the laboratory, this petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings. Petitioners had filed a petition before the learned Magistrate to send the second sample to the laboratory. In that petition Annexure-G report was submitted by the Excise Inspector to the effect that only one sample was prepared and hence second sample cannot be produced before the court. According to the petitioners though Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 does not specifically provide that an accused has a right to send the second sample to laboratory, as is the case under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, this court in several decisions had held that accused has a right to get the second sample examined and when no second sample was prepared, and report submitted by the Excise Inspector establishes that there is utter violation of the mandatory provisions of Rule 8 of Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, prosecution will not stand and in such circumstances, the case is to be quashed.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that though the report of the Excise Inspector submitted before the Magistrate shows that only one sample was prepared and under Rule 8(2), two samples are to be taken, on that ground alone the case cannot be quashed. Learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that when petitioners have already approached this court invoking the powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the registration of the case and it was disposed, a second petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for the same relief will not lie and on that ground also petition is to be dismissed.

3. Rule 8(2) of Abkari Shops Disposal Rules provides that Abkari Officer has the authority to take sample of liquor, for chemical analysis, following the procedure provided under Sub Rule 2. Under clause(c) of Sub Rule 2 Abkari officer has to divide the sample into two parts and put each part into separate bottles or containers which are properly cleaned and dried. Under clause (e), each bottle is to be marked labels A and B and the Abkari Officer shall put his signature, name, designation as the officer taking the samples, with the details of the shop and the item of the sample taken with quantity along with the signature or thump impression of the person from whom the sample is taken. Under clause (f) the sealed bottle marked 'A', shall be forwarded to the Chief Chemical Examiner or Joint Chemical Examiner to the Government of Kerala or to any officer authorized by the Government alo