1. These three petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "Cr.P.C.") arise out of Crime No.11 of 2008 of Excise Range Office, Ernakulam, which is pending in committal proceedings, C.P.No.6 of 2010 in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ernakulam. Petitioners are accused 6 to 8 in the case. Offences alleged against them in Annexure-XII final report are under Sections 6, 10 and 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act (Act 1 of 1077)(for short, "Abkari Act"). Crl.M.C.No.1095 of 2010 is taken as the leading case for clarity and convenience.

2. 8th accused is the petitioner in Crl. M.C. No.1095 of 2010. He is the Chairman of M/s.Jet Airways (India) Pvt. Ltd. (for short, "Company"). 7th accused, at the relevant time, was working as the General Manager of Warehouse and Distribution of the Company. 6th accused then was working as the Purchase Manager in the Company. Company is operating international flight services from Cochin too. For serving 'champagne' (a group of wine-mild alcoholic drink) to the passengers travelling in the international flights, Purchase Manager of the Company placed orders to M/s. Moet Hennessy India Pvt. Ltd. for purchasing 30 cases of champagne on specific conditions. After complying with all the formalities, 30 cases of champagne were imported. While transporting the goods from Panvel, Mumbai to Cochin on a valid bond to bond transfer permit issued by the Customs, it was intercepted by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the goods were handed over to the 1st respondent. 1st respondent in turn, registered the above said crime. Petitioners allege that both the authorities did not verify the valid documents produced at the time of seizure. Seizure, registering of crime and all subsequent proceedings, according to the petitioners, are vitiated by malafides, absence of jurisdiction and ultra vires of their authority.

3. Annexure-IX, final report was filed by the Excise Circle Inspector, Ernakulam before the learned Magistrate. Initially there were only three accused. Subsequent to the filing of Annexure-IX final report, the Excise Inspector filed a report before the learned Magistrate seeking permission to conduct further investigation in the case. That is Annexure-X. Learned Magistrate as per Annexure-X(a) order, granted permission. Pursuant to that, further investigation was conducted and Annexure-XI, report was filed. As per this report, the investigating agency added accused 4 to 8 in the crime and deleted Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act from the original report. Annexure-XII is the final report, which is sought to be quashed by the petitioners.

4. Charge that is now made against the petitioners is in the following manner: As instructed by the 4th accused (consignor), the 5th accused (Operation Executive, M/s. Green Freight Carriers) transported Foreign made foreign liquor from Panvel, Mumbai to Cochin by Mangala Express train through its agent, 2nd accused. Goods were cleared from the South Railway Station, Ernakulam by the 3rd accused (clearing agent) and arranged transport facility through 1st accused. All the above acts were done for the 6th accused (consignee -Purchase Manager of the Company), the 7th accused (General Manager of Warehouse and Distribution of the Company) and the 8th accused (Chairman of the Company). Thus, all the accused have committed offences punishable under Sections 6, 10 and 55(a) of the Abkari Act.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. Legal questions that crop up for determination are the following:

(i) Whether removal of foreign made foreign liquor from one bonded warehouse in Maharashtra to another bonded warehouse in Angamali, Kerala after complying with all formalities in Chapter IX of the Customs Act, 1962 can be termed as illegal import or transport punishable under the Abkari Act (Act 1 of 1077)?

(ii) When goods are removed from one bonded warehouse to another one as a