ORDER

The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.1085 of 2018 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Kollam which arises from Crime No.1022 of 2018 of East Kallada Police Station. The offence alleged against him is under Section 118(a) of Kerala Police Act.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was found in an intoxicated stage, incapable of looking after himself by creating nuisance in a public place at Chothiram near East Kallada on 03.07.2018 and thus the aforesaid offence has been committed. This petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing Annexure A2 final report submitted in the aforesaid case.

3. Heard Sri.Manu Ramachandran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Sudheer Gopalakrishnan, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. The contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no offence under Section 118(a) of Kerala Police Act has been made out. Referring to the contents in Annexure A2, it is pointed out by him that the documents submitted in support of allegations of Annexure A2 such as the mahazar and statements of witnesses are in a printed format, wherein the name and other personal details of the petitioner herein alone have been entered into by using a pen. It is his specific case that exact incident and the acts allegedly committed by the petitioner are not reflected in the mahazar prepared. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposes the said contentions and points out that the allegations contained in Annexure A2 are sufficient to constitute the offence alleged against him.

4. When Annexure A2 final report is examined, it can be seen that, all the acts alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are incorporated in a mahazar prepared in a pre-printed format and only personal details of the petitioner have been entered into by writing. Section 118(a) of Police Act reads as follows:

“118. Penalty for causing grave violation of public order or danger.— Any person who,—

(a) is found in a public place, in an intoxicated manner or rioting condition or incapable of looking after himself; or”

In order to attract the aforesaid offence, the accused must have been found in public place in an intoxicated manner or rioting condition or incapable of looking after himself. In order to establish the aforesaid offence, the mahazar prepared by the Police which is a contemporaneous document should contain specific allegations as to the act alleged to have been committed by him when he was found in such a public place. Keeping a general format in a pre-printed form would not serve the purpose, as it indicates a preconceived idea of the offence. The term ‘intoxicated’ has been considered by this Court as in Shybu Mathew v. State of Kerala [2012(1) KHC

392]. Paragraph Nos.4 to 8 of which reads as follows: “4. The word 'intoxicated' does not mean that the man is dead drunk. In the Law Lexicon mentioned above, it is also stated that in the ordinary etymological meaning the term 'intoxication' means, a condition produced by excessive use of alcoholic stimulants. The decision of the Madras High Court in Re Palani Goundan AIR 1957 Mad. 546. has also been relied upon in this connection. There an accused was found having the symptoms, namely; smelling of arrack in breath, redness of the eyes and dilation of pupil, the tongue was clean and dry and the speech was incoherent and the gait was staggering. It was held in that case that the accused was in a state of intoxication. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, no such material is there and as such it cannot be said that the accused was in a state of intoxication. The decision cited supra was rendered in a case under the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937. There also the word 'intoxication' was not defined. The decision in Satya Rao versus State AIR 1954 AP 4 cited by the learned counsel was also rendered interpreting the word intoxication occurring in Madras Prohibition Act.

5. The decis