1. The issue raised for consideration in these Writ Petitions is with regard to compounding of an offence of mixing of starch with toddy. The parties and documents are being referred to in this judgment as arrayed in W.P. (C) No. 3969 of 2018 which is taken as the leading case.

2. The petitioner was a licencee of toddy shop Nos. 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 26 of Group No. 111 in Vadakara range for the period upto 31.3.2018. It is submitted that a crime and occurrence report dated 15.8.2017 had been registered against the petitioner. It is stated that a sample of toddy taken from the petitioner’s shop on 15.4.2017 revealed the presence of starch mixed with toddy. It is stated that Exhibits P16 and P17 applications preferred by an employee in the shop of the petitioner had been rejected and Exhibit P14 order of cancellation of licence in respect of the toddy shops had been issued on 1.1.2018 on the allegation that the toddy had been found to be adulterated with foreign material. Exhibit P15 order directing resale of the shops was also issued which is under challenge in the Writ Petition.

3. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the mixing of starch with toddy is a minor offence and cannot entail cancellation of licence in terms of S.26 of the Abkari Act (for short, the Act). It is stated that by the amendment brought about in Sections 57(a) and 67A of the Act, the mixing of starch with toddy, even if such mixing is admitted, has been made a minor offence by taking it out of the ambit of the more serious offences. Compounding is also enabled in such cases after the amendment. It is therefore contended that even though the offence in these cases was committed before the amendment to S.57(a) and S.67A of the Act, the application preferred for compounding is liable to be considered and the cancellation of licence is completely unjustified and illegal.

4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent. It is stated therein that the offence of mixing of starch with toddy had been detected in all these cases before the amendment was effected in the Act with effect from 21.12.2017. It is stated that the offence of mixing foreign materials with toddy was an offence punishable under S.57(a) of the Act at the time when the offence was committed and detected. It is stated that the provision for compounding of the offence has come into effect only with effect from 21.12.2017. It is stated that therefore the application for compounding under S.67A could not be considered, since the offence was committed before the date on which the offence was made compoundable.

5. Relying on S.320 Cr.P.C. the learned Government Pleader would contend that compounding of an offence is not a right available to any person and that what is contemplated is only an application by the petitioner. It is stated that in these cases, final reports have been filed before court and that in the said circumstances, compounding is possible only with the permission of the court. It is stated that the State cannot be directed to compound any offence and the appropriate consideration has to result in each case on the merits thereof. Relying on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Sanjayan v. Tahsildar, 2007 (4) KLT 597, the learned Government Pleader submits that the effect of compounding an offence is that the accused admits his liability and seeks to avoid the penal consequences of the same. It is submitted that the compounding of an offence under S.57(aa) as provided in S.67A would only absolve the petitioners of the liability for facing prosecution for the said offence. It is therefore contended that the cancellation of licences and the decision to re-auction the shops would remain unaffected by any compounding of the offence, even if it were to be accepted. The learned Government Pleader therefore contends that the compounding of the offence would be of no consequence whatsoever for the purpose of