1. The petitioner in the former Crl.M.C. is the liencee of Toddy Shop No.16/12-13 and other 5 toddy shops in Group No.III of Pathanamthitta Excise Range and the second petitioner in the latter Crl.M.C. is the licencee of Toddy Shop No.15 Annikampoyil of Thalassery Excise Range for the year 20012-2013. The first petitioner in the latter Crl.M.C. is a salesman of the shop in question. Since these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases carry the same questions for consideration and the petitioners are having similar grievances for redressal they were heard jointly and are being disposed of by this common order. Against the petitioner in the former Crl.M.C. C.R.No.39/2013 was registered at Pathanamthitta Excise Range alleging commission of offence under Sections 56 (b) and 57(a) of the Abkari Act. The case against him is that on 14.03.2013 at about 8.40 p.m. the Excise Inspector of Pathanamthitta and party conducted a search in Toddy Shop No. 16/12-13 commonly known as Payyaram toddy shop and seized 76 litres of toddy kept in 117 bottles of 650 ml. each and 935 litres of adulterated/artificial toddy kept in black coloured water tank and also in 9 cans. Samples were taken from each containers and mahazar was prepared. Thereafter, case was registered against the salesman as first accused and petitioner herein who is the licencee as the second accused. Annexure-A is the crime and occurrence report and Annexure-B is the mahazar prepared in that case. In Crl.M.C.No.1382 of 2013, C.R.No.16/2013 was registered against the petitioners at Thalassery Excise Range for the offence punishable under Section 57(a) of the Abkari Act. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.12.2012 the excise party conducted a search in Toddy Shop No. 15 at Annikampoyil and collected samples of the toddy kept for sale. Annexure-A4 is the crime and occurrence report prepared in the said crime.

2. Admittedly, after conducting search in the aforesaid toddy shops crime and occurrence reports were prepared, the samples taken respectively from the said toddy shops were forwarded for chemical examination in accordance with law. At the same time, before obtaining the reports of the chemical analysis of the samples taken from the respective shops C.R.No.39/2013 of Pathanamthitta Excise Range was registered against the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.1355 of 2013 and C.R.No.16/2013 of Thalassery Excise Range was registered against the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.1382 of 2013.

3. Various contentions have been raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.1355 of 2013 and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.1382 of 2013. The core contention of the petitioners is that a crime could not be registered unless or until a positive report on chemical analysis of the samples taken and forwarded pursuant to the search, is received . The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.1355 of 2013 submitted that in such circumstances, if at all any offence would lie it would only be under Section 56(b) of the Abkari Act for violating the permit conditions. Admittedly, in these cases, crimes were registered against the petitioners before the receipt of the report of the samples forwarded for chemical analysis taken from the respective toddy shops.

4. The petitioners relied on the decisions of this Court in Rajan and Others V. State of Kerala and Another reported in 2010(3)KLJ 461, Sobhanan and Others V. State of Kerala reported in 2011(2) KLD 66 and Annexures F and G judgments of this Court to substantiate the aforesaid contention. Per contra the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that registration of a crime on the allegation that the toddy is artificial or adulterated is possible only if a positive report of the chemical examination of the sample taken and forwarded for analysis is received by the Investigating Officer and at any rate, before the receipt of such a report if a