Petitioners 1 and 2 are the employees and petitioners 3 to 7 are the joint licensees of toddy shops 57 to 61 of Group X of Kanjirappally Excise Range. Based on an inspection made by the second respondent, Circle Inspector of Excise, Kanjirappally registered C.R.54/2010 of Kanjirappally Excise Range. He prepared Annexure-A crime and occurrence report for the offences under Section 55(a), 55(i), 56(b) and 58 of Kerala Abkari Act, on the allegation that even though being Gandhi Jayanthi day, sale of toddy is prohibited about 50 Ltrs. of toddy of Sago Palm (Choondapana) was found stored in the toddy shop No.61 and petitioners thereby committed the offences. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the registration of the case for the offences under Sections 55(a), 55(i) and 58 of Abkari Act contending that if at all, only an offence under Section 56(b) is attracted. Petitioners would contend that two of the petitioners along with other licensees of the group No.X of Kanjirappally Excise Range had submitted Annexure-I complaint to the Excise Commissioner pointing out that second respondent is attempting to extract money illegally from the toddy shop owners. It is contended that because of that complaint false case was registered without any bonafide. It is contended that there was no sale of toddy from the toddy shop on 2/10/2010 as alleged and though tree tax was not paid for all the trees in respect of the toddy shops, it was not wilful. It is the case that evidenced by Annexure-J, tree tax was paid for shop No.57 on 1/10/2010 and when tree tax for remaining shops were tendered, it was reported that tree tax need be paid by 15/10/2010, as reported in Annexure-H newspaper report and therefore, tree tax was not paid on or before 1/10/2010 in respect of the remaining shops and even if, it is taken that toddy found in the toddy shop was tapped from trees for which tax was not paid, it will not attract an offence under Section 55 (a) or 55(i) or 58 of Abkari Act and therefore, continuation of the proceedings for those offences is only an abuse of process of the court and hence it is to be quashed.

2. Assistant commissioner of Excise, Kottayam filed a statement justifying the registration of the case and opposing the prayer for quashing the offences.

3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

4. Learned Senior counsel pointed out that evidenced by Annexure-J, receipt for remittance, tree tax for shop No.57 was paid on 1/10/2010 and subsequently after this court admitted this Crl.M.C and passed an order on 8/10/2010 clarifying that application for bail is to be considered, as if the offence under Section 56(b) of Abkari Act alone was committed, Annexure-K petition was filed before the second respondent seking permission to pay the tree tax for the remaining shops. When it was rejected by Annexure-L, permission was sought to remit the amount from Deputy Commissioner, Kottayam. It was permitted. As evidenced by Annexure-M tree tax was paid for all the remaining shops paid on 14/10/2010. It is argued that tax was to be paid on or before before 15/10/2010 as stated in Annexure-H paper report and once the tax was paid and license is issued, it should necessarily relate back to 1/10/2010 and therefore, it cannot be said that toddy tapped was from trees without payment of tree tax.

5. Learned Senior counsel pointed out that as held by this court in Mohanan v. State of Kerala (2007 (1) KLT 845) an offence under Section 55(a) is not attracted, in the absence of an allegation that toddy was stored in the toddy shop either for export or in the course of import. It is also pointed out that as held by this court in Annexure-D order passed in Crl.M.C.648/2009, and confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court, sale of liquor on a prohibited day will not attract an offence under Section 55(a) or 58 of Abkari Act and it would attract only an offence under Section 56