Knowledge of illegal activity does not establish criminal liability if the accused is not in control of the premises at the time of the offence.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to quash the proceedings in C.P.No.10/2015 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattancherry. The petitioner is the 2nd accused in the above case. The above case is charge sheeted alleging offences punishable under Sections 55 (a) and (i) of the Kerala Abkari Act .

2.The prosecution case is that, with the knowledge of the petitioner who is the 2 nd accused, the 1 st and the 3 rd accused supplied Kingfisher beer in the restaurant owned by the petitioner to two foreign national on 09.02.2014 at about 6.30p.m. The police party reached the hotel and seized two bottles of Kingfisher beer. On the basis of this allegation, Annexure-I FIR is registered.

Subsequently after investigation, Annexure-II final report is filed.

The contention of the petitioner is that, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out against the petitioner.

3.Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.

4.It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the admitted case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the owner of the building and the other accused sold the Kingfisher beer with the knowledge of the petitioner. The counsel takes me through Annexure-IV Encumbrance Certificate, in which, it is stated that the property is already sold by the petitioner on 30.03.2004.

Hence, it is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner will not stand.

5.The Public Prosecutor submitted that, it is a matter of evidence and this Court may not interfere with the prosecution against the petitioner.

6.This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Annexure-II is the final report filed by the prosecution. As per Annexure-II, the allegation is that the accused 1 to 3 without getting license, sold beer in the hotel premises which is conducted by the 1 st accused and the 2 nd accused is the owner of the premises and the beer supplied with the knowledge of the petitioner. There is no case to the prosecution that the petitioner who is the 2nd accused was present at the time of the alleged seizure of Kingfisher beer from the hotel premises. The definite case of the petitioner is that, he already transferred the building and the premises before the date on which the alleged seizure happened.

7.This Court perused Annexure-IV. From the above, it is clear that the property is already sold on 30.03.2004. The alleged incident in this case was on 09.02.20214. If that is the case, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution against the petitioner need not be continued. But I make it clear that, this order is not applicable to the other accused and the same is to be considered by the appropriate court in accordance with law.

Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner alone in C.P.No.10/2015 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattancherry are quashed.

The Registry will forward a copy of this order to the Court concerned forthwith.