1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Code) to quash Annexure A in Crime No. 906/2011 of Vellikulangara Police Station which was filed under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act 1077 (Kerala). First petitioner is the brother of the licensee of Hotel Luciya, Chalakkudy and second petitioner is a practicing lawyer at Chalakkudy, who happened to be a passenger in a vehicle KL-32/A-5656 on his way to his wife's house at Kodali, due to a vehicle bandh. While they were travelling in the above vehicle, the Sub Inspector of Police, Vellikulangara inspected the vehicle at Kodali junction near Chalakkudy and registered a case for the offence punishable under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act. Petitioners contended that prima-facie case is not made out against them as alleged in the FIR and if trial is conducted on the basis of the alleged seizure, it will be a mere abuse of the process of court.

2. The prosecution allegation is that, on 5.11.11, the Sub Inspector, Vellikulangara Police Station was conducting patrol duty within his jurisdiction. At 12.50 p.m, when he reached at Government L.P. School, Kodali, the vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-32/A-5656 came there, and on inspection of the vehicle they detected 192 bottles of Rum, 24 bottles of Brandy and 24 bottles of Beer in the vehicle. Petitioners were arrested on the spot itself and registered crime No. 906/11 under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act. Petitioners contended that the liquors found in the car were purchased from the Kerala Beverages Corporation, Chalakkudy as per licence of Hotel Luciya, Chalakkudy and on the way to Hotel Pratap Regency at Kodali by the licensee, the police seized the liquor. There is only violation of licence condition, hence the petitioners approached this Court to quash Annexure A.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that, the first petitioner is the brother of the licensee one Prathapan, one of the Directors of Hotel Luciya Chalakkudy, his son Prijith Prathapan is the licensee of Hotel Pratap Regency at Kodali near Chalakkudy. First petitioner is looking after the affairs of both these hotels. On that date, stock in the Hotel Pratap Regency exhausted and as per urgent need of that day, they shifted a few bottles of liquor from the Hotel Luciya, Chalakkudy, which was purchased from the wholesale godown of Kerala State Beverages Corporation, Chalakkudy. Since the liquor was purchased from KSBC, Chalakkudy by the licensee of Hotel Luciya, the owner has right of possession and transportation of such liquor in urgent need to his brother's another hotel which amounts to a violation of licence condition. If the licensee or his employee has committed any violation of licence conditions, Sections 56 and 63 are the proper Sections against them. Both offences are compoundable as per Section 67 (A) of the Abkari Act, which was introduced on 7.12.2009 by the Act 3 of 2010. Learned counsel placed reliance on various decisions reported in Sabu v. State of Kerala (2003 (2) KLT 173), Mohanan v. State of Kerala (2007(1) KLT 845), Rajan & others v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KLJ 461), Gopakumar v. State of Kerala (2011 (1) KLT 450), Nobbey & Another V State of Kerala (2011 (1) KLD 11).

4. The learned Public Prosecutor urged that, nothing has been produced before this Court to show the relationship between the licensee and the petitioner, and it is a matter of evidence which can be proved only in a full fledged trial. The 2nd Petitioner is their legal adviser and not an innocent passenger. Since he is a lawyer, he has knowledge about the consequence of the violation of law. Only after verifying the Stock Register, the truth with regard to transportation of liquor can be revealed. Therefore only after a full fledged trial, these things can be drawn in this case. If any interference is made, it will affect the entire prosecution case at this stage.

5. Before adverting to the argume