1. Since common question is involved these cases are disposed of by a common order.

2. In all these cases the question raised for a decision is whether if the detecting officer has not taken steps to send the liquid seized for chemical analysis, prosecution for offence punishable under Sec.15(c) of the Abkari Act (for short, "the Act") is liable to be quashed.

3. Short facts necessary for consideration of the above question are:

Crl.M.C.No.466 of 2011 arises from the final report submitted by the Thoppumpady police in S.T.No.2824 of 2010 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kochi. Case is that on 20.04.2010 at about 5 p.m the Sub Inspector, Thoppumpady found petitioner consuming liquor at a public place. The detecting officer is said to have seized from the petitioner about 20ml of the liquid (allegedly IMFL) contained in a bottle of 500ml capacity and a 100ml capacity disposable glass. It is also stated that the bottle contained the label "All Gold US OP Brandy". The detecting officer is said to have identified the liquid as liquor by smelling and tasting and also by Alcoquant test which revealed that there was 249mg of liquor per 100ml of blood. Crl.M.C.No.472 of 2011 arises from Crime No.637 of 2010 of Thoppumpady Police Station and proceeding in S.T.No.2825 of 2010 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kochi. The alleged detection was on 20.04.2010 at about 5.45 p.m. It is alleged that petitioner was found consuming liquor at a public place. The detecting officer is said to have seized from the petitioner 50ml of IMFL contained in a 375ml capacity bottle which had the label "3 Roses US OP Brand" and a disposable glass of 100ml capacity. The liquid was allegedly identified as liquor by smelling and tasting. Alcoquant test was conducted which revealed that there was 251mg of liquor per 100ml of blood. Crl.M.C.No.629 of 2011 arises from the final report in Crime No.1144 of 2010 of Harbour Police Station. Final report was submitted before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kochi who took cognizance of the offence and filed C.C.No.2921 of 2010. Allegation is that petitioners were found consuming liquor at a public place on 06.09.2010 at about 8.30p.m. The detecting officer is said to have seized from the petitioners an empty bottle of 750ml capacity with label "MC No.1 McDowel Brandy" with 10ml of brandy in it and two disposable glasses. The detecting officer is said to have identified the liquid as liquor from the smell of breath of petitioners. Alcoquant test was also conducted which revealed that there was above 100mg of liquor per 100ml of blood of petitioners. In all the above cases, petitioner/petitioners are charged for offence punishable under Sec.15 (c) of the Act.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that since the liquid allegedly seized were not sent for chemical analysis, identification of the liquid as liquor by smelling and tasting or even by Alcoquant test is not sufficient to prosecute petitioners. According to the learned counsel the best form of evidence that prosecution could adduce is by chemical analysis of the liquid and in the absence of that, the prosecution can only fail. My attention is drawn to Rule 8 of Abkari Shops Disposals Rules (for short, "the Rules") which according to the learned counsel prescribed the manner of collection of sample of liquor for chemical analysis. Reliance is also placed on the decision in Rajeev.P Vs. State of Kerala (2009(2) KLD 656).

5. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that the decision referred above cannot apply to the facts of the case. It is pointed out that the decision of the Supreme Court in Sri Chand Batra Vs. State of U.P (AIR 1974 SC 639) has not been adverted to in the said decision. It is argued that Rule 8 of the Rules concerns collection of sample of toddy/liquor from toddy shops/liquor shops. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, whether identification of the liqu