IMPORTANT POINTS
Only when the witnesses cited by the investigating officer were able to say precisely about the involvement of the petitioner in the sale of rectified spirit or storage of the same for sale, he could be chargesheeted for an offence punishable under Section 55(i) of the Act. The materials in Annexure A final report alone could form basis for framing of charges by the court against the petitioner. Framing of a proper charge precedes a fair trial-For prosecuting the petitioner for an offence under Section 55(i) of the Act, court must frame a charge incorporating the seven contents as contemplated under Section 211 Cr.P.C,.

ORDER :

In the petition on hand, proceedings initiated by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Angamaly as C.P.No.20 of 2019, which was originated from crime No.118 of 2017 of Aluva Excise Range is sought to be quashed. The case of the prosecution was that the petitioner is conducting an industrial unit at Meikavu, Angamaly in the name 'M/s. Arackal Aromatics' and engaged in importing rectified spirit as raw material for manufacturing products in the unit. The petitioner was originally issued with a licence No.E-97/07-08 on 19.11.2007 as per order No.XC2-9380/07/K.Dis of the Excise Commissioner. The photocopy of the said licence is produced alongwith as Annexure-B.

2. It is averred that Annexure-B is renewed annually from 2008-09 and lastly till 31.03.2018. Thereafter, Writ Petition No.31582 of 2018 was filed by the petitioner seeking for a declaration that he is entitled to get renewal of Annexure-B. It was also prayed for quashing the order of the Excise Commissioner dated 12.07.2018, (Ext.P7). It was averred that the petitioner was engaged in the manufacture of computer cleaning and brightening liquid and also engaged in sale of that to different persons.

3. The case of the prosecution as revealed from Annexure-A Final Report was that 17 plastic drums containing rectified spirit was seized on 05.09.2017. The allegation of the prosecution was that, in the examination held on 05.09.2017, loss of 905 litres of spirit was noted out of 5000 litres of rectified spirit brought to the premises of 'M/s.Arackal Aromatics' by the licensee and when he was enquired about the reason for the deficient spirit, convincing explanation was not offered by him. For the reason that relevant records relating to manufacture of any products by utilisation of the deficient spirit or regarding sale of the same were not available in the concern, a final report was laid chargesheeting the petitioner for an offence under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act. (for short 'the Act').

4. The contention of the learned counsel was that the petitioner was engaged in the manufacture of computer cleaning and brightening liquid, and was also engaged in the sale of those to different persons. According to him, even if the allegation that spirit was found deficient from the quantity permitted to be held, the offence under Section 55(i) of the Act will not be attracted for the reason mainly that licence holders or permit holders were excluded from it's purview, since 1997. According to the learned counsel, the only offence liable to be attracted from the allegations is the one punishable under Section 56(b) of the Act.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the petition. As directed by this Court, he has filed statement of facts on behalf of the respondents. It is stated therein that RSI licence has been issued to the petitioner for manufacture of computer motherboard cleaning liquid, which is an industrial product. According to him, RSI licence cannot be converted for use of spirit for portable or any other purpose and it shall be renewed every year. According to him, procedures prescribed for renewal of RSI licence have not been complied with in the case on hand. It is also stated that the Excise Commissioner may cancel or suspend the licence or permit granted under Act for violation of any conditions of licence. The Excise Commissioner has not only the right but also obligation to examine the conduct of business by the licensee. In the statement filed, it is mentioned that the petitioner was enjoying the RSI licence held by him for a period of 11 years with effect from 24.11.2007 till 31.03.2018. According to him, the case on hand is registered against the petitioner under good faith for illicit sale of spirit under the cover of licence. The petitioner was granted RSI licence to possess rectified spirit as raw material for manufacturing products. But no products were seen manufactured in the licensed premises at the time of detection and no registers were se