HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
BABU @ BABUJI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet 2160 2014
Abkari - Criminal Prosecution - Abkari Act - Sections 4, 8(1) and (2), 55(a), 120B IPC - Court ruled that investigation was invalid due to lack of competence in officers, quashing the proceedings based on the final report prepared by incompetent officers.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners faced charges in a case regarding offenses under the Abkari Act and IPC. They challenged the validity of the final report, alleging it was filed by incompetent officers not authorized to investigate according to the Abkari Act.
Issues: Whether the final report filed by officers not designated as Abkari Officers was valid, and if the court had jurisdiction to hear the case based on such a report.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that only officers appointed as Abkari Officers under the Abkari Act were competent to conduct investigations, making the actions taken by the incompetent officers void.
Final Decision: The charges against the petitioners were quashed, and they were discharged under Section 227 of CrPC.
ORDER
The petitioners in these cases are accused in Sessions Case No.1130 of 2007 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Neyyattinkara, arising from Crime No.116 of 2003 of Nemom Police Station. Originally four cases were registered as Crime No.116 of 2003 of Nemom Police Station, Crime No.8 of 2003 of Thampanoor Police Station, Crime No.168 of 2002 of Pettah Police Station and Crime No.198 of 2002 of Nemom Police Station. All these cases were clubbed together and Crime No.116 of 2003 of Nemom Police Station was investigated and a final report is filed and the same was taken on file as Sessions Case No.1130 of 2007. The offences alleged are under Sections 8 (1) and (2), 55(a) and (i) and 58 of the Abkari Act and Section 120B IPC .
2. The short point raised in these cases by the learned Senior Counsel Sri.C.C.Thomas and the other counsel appearing in the other cases is that the final report in these cases are filed by an incompetent officer. The final report is filed by a Circle Inspector of Police, (Control Room), Thiruvananthapuram. The contentions raised by the petitioners that he is an incompetent officer and this point is considered by this Court inSujith v. State of Kerala [2016 (3) KHC 823]. Moreover inJil v. State of Kerala [2017 (3) KLT 156] also this Court considered the same point.
3. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor.
4. After hearing both sides, I think there is force in the argument of the petitioners. The same point is considered by this Court in detail in Sujith’s case (supra). It will be beneficial to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment here:
“6. The investigation of a case of this nature can be conducted by an Abkari Officer notified under Section 4 of the Abkari Act . Such a Notification had been issued by the Government of Kerala which is SRO No. 321 of 1996 It reads as follows:
“SRO No. 321/96.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Abkari Act , I of 1077 the Government of Kerala hereby appoint all Police Officers of and above the rank of Sub Inspector of Police in charge of Law and Order and working in the General executive branch of the Police Department and all Revenue Officers of and above the rank of Deputy Collectors to be Abkari Officers under their respective Jurisdiction for the purposes of Sections 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 and 59 of the Act and to exercise all the powers and to discharge all the duties conferred and imposed on Abkari Officers in the sections aforesaid.
This notification shall come into force with immediate effect. (GO (P) No. 69/96/TD dt.
29/03/1996).”
7. As per this Notification, the Government of Kerala appointed all Police Officers of and above the rank of Sub Inspector of Police in charge of law and order and working in the general executive branch of the Police Department and all revenue officers of and above the rank of Deputy Collectors to be Abkari Officers under their respective jurisdiction for the purposes of Sections 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 and 59 of the Abkari Act and to exercise all the powers and to discharge all the duties conferred and imposed on Abkari Officers in the Sections aforesaid. Therefore, a Police Officer of and above the rank of Sub Inspector of Police in charge of law and order and working in the general executive branch of the Police Department appointed as an Abkari Officer alone can exercise the powers conferred and discharge the duties imposed under the aforesaid Sections of the . There cannot be any dispute and, as a matter of fact, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narcotic Cell, Alappuzha, was not a Police Officer in charge of law and order and working in the general executive branch of the Police Department. He was an officer in the Narcotic Cell, Alappuzha, at the relevant time empowered with powers and duties connected
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.