The petitioner herein seeks orders quashing the prosecution against him under S.294(b) I.P.C. and under S.15C of the Kerala Abkari Act (the Act) in C.C.No.887/2017 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – I, Vaikom. The said case was suo moto registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Vaikom.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was found consuming liquor at the side of the public road in front of the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Vaikom at about 9.50 p.m. on 2.7.2017, and when the Sub Inspector approached him, the petitioner scolded the Sub Inspector in filthy language. The petitioner was arrested on the spot by the Sub Inspector, and he was subjected to Alco Meter Test. The petitioner was also taken to the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, where, he was examined by a doctor.

3. The petitioner seeks orders on the ground that there is absolutely no material for a prosecution against him under S.15C of the Kerala Abkari Act, or under S.294(b) I.P.C., and that, if the prosecution proceeds on the available materials, it would be nothing, but an abuse of legal process. This is a case where, the prosecution relies mainly on the certificate of drunkenness issued from the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Vaikom. Though the petitioner was subjected to Alco Meter Test, the device gave a strange result of 12,777.3 mg per 100 ml. When the court required explanation regarding this strange result, the police submitted a statement of admission that it is a wrong result, and it happened probably due to the mechanical defect of the device.

4. The F.I.R., or the final report does not show what words, or what indecent, or obscene words were used by the petitioner against the Sub Inspector. No discussion is required to find that the charge under S.294(b) I.P.C. is quite baseless. For a 388 prosecution under S.15C of the Kerala Abkari Act, it must be proved that the accused was found consuming liquor at a public place. In this case, a very small quantity of 50 ml.of liquor contained in a bottle of 1 litre capacity was seized, and the said quantity was not sent for chemical analysis.

5. In State of Kerala v. Sreedharan (1965 KHC 267), a Division Bench of this Court held that in the absence of a report from the Public Analyst, it would not be safe to rely on the smell of alcohol alone to find that the liquid involved is liquor within the meaning of S.8 of the Prohibition Act. Of course, this is a prosecution under S.8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act. In Rajeev P. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr. (2009 KHC 979), a single Bench of this Court held that on the evidence of smell of alcohol alone, an accused cannot be found guilty under S.15C of the Kerala Abkari Act, and that in a case where sufficient quantity of liquor was seized by the Police, a report of analysis must be obtained, identifying the liquid as liquor. In Soman v. State of Kerala (2011 (2) KLT 104), this Court held that for the mere reason that the liquid seized was not subjected to chemical analysis, it cannot be said that the prosecution under S.15C of the Kerala Abkari Act is not maintainable. In Rajeev’s case, it was held that the evidence of the Excise Officials that the liquid was identified as liquor by its taste and odour, is not sufficient for a conviction under S.15C of the Act. Soman’s case is a case where the accused was subjected to Alco Meter Test, and a positive result was obtained. Added to that, there was the evidence of the Excise Officials also that the liquid was identified as liquor by its ‘taste and odour’. But in this case, the position is different. The Alco Meter Test gave a strange result of exorbitant reading, which is now admittedly a wrong reading. No value can be attached to the Alco Meter reading.

6. In the Motor Vehicles Act, there are some provisions dealing with drunken driving, and the procedure for detection of the presence of alcohol in the blood of the drunken driver. The scheme of the provisions in Ss.203 and 204 of the Motor Vehicles Act wil