Ayurvedic medicines cannot be classified as liquor under the Abkari Act.

O R D E R

==========

This Crl.M.C.is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Annexure A Crime and Occurrence Report and all proceedings pursuant to the same in C.R.No.58 of 2021 of the Excise Range Office, Thiruvananthapuram. The said crime was registered against the petitioner, alleging commission of offences punishable under Rule 10(1) of the Kerala Spirituous Preparations (Control)

Rules, 1969 and Section 63 & 67B of the Abkari Act , 1077.

2. The prosecution case is that on 21.06.2021, at about 11.30 a.m., while the excise party was conducting patrolling duty in and around Poovar, a vehicle bearing registration number KL-01BL-3104 was found parked on the side of the road. On searching the said vehicle, six cardboard cartons, each containing 24 bottles having 450 ml, totalling 144 bottles of balarishtam were found. It is alleged that the petitioner had been transporting the said bottles in the vehicle without any valid permit and had thus committed the offences under which he had been charged.

3. Heard Sri. S.A. Anand, Advocate for the Petitioner and Smt. Maya M.N., the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that not even a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner to lay a charge against him under the above mentioned provisions of theAbkari Actor theKerala Spirituous Preparations (Control) Rules, 1969 and that the proceedings initiated against him as C.R.No.58 of 2021 are fit to be quashed. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down inPriyamvada P.G. (Dr) v. State of Kerala[ 2015 (5) KHC 63 ], wherein it was held that ‘Arishtam’ and ‘Asava’ which are ayurvedic medicines cannot be treated as liquor under Section 3(10) or 56(b) or 67(B)(a) of theAbkari Actand Rule 10(c)(i) of the , 1969. It is submitted that the said dictum has been confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.546 of 2016, and the challenge against the same before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(Diary) No.23126 of 2017 has been turned down.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the Transport Permit dated 21.06.2021 produced along with the Crl.M.C. and it is contended that the same entitles transportation of the stipulated quantity of ayurvedic medicines specified therein.

5. The learned counsel also placed for my perusal a judgment dated 02.07.2024 of this Court in Dr.Ramadasan K.R. v. The Additional Excise Commissioner (Enforcement) in W.P(C)No.38687 of 2016, wherein this Court had followed the dictum laid down in Priyamvada P.G. (supra).

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the contentions and submitted that the Crl.M.C. is devoid of merit and is only to be dismissed. It is submitted that a prima facie case has been made out for proceeding further with the trial and the ingredients to attract charges under Section 3(10) or 56(b) or 67(B)(a) of the Abkari Act and Rule 10(c)(i) of the Kerala Spirituous Preparations (Control) Rules , 1969 are made out.

7. I have heard both sides in detail. It is trite, as laid down in Priyamvada P.G. (supra), that Arishtam and Asavas, which are ayurvedic medicines, cannot be treated as liquor under Section 3(10) or 56(b) or 67(B)(a) of the Abkari Act . It follows that licence or permit under the is not mandated for the transportation of ayurvedic medicines. This position has been reiterated in subsequent precedents of high authoritative value [See Vijaya v. State of Kerala ( 2022 KHC 5101 ), Rajkumar v. State of Kerala (Judgment dated 15.06.2020 in W.P(C) No. 19632/2016) Dr.Ramadasan K.R. (supra) ] It follows therefrom that the charges levelled against the petitioner under Section 63 & 67B of the are not sustainable. As regards the alleged violation of Rule 10 (1) of the Kerala Spirituou