P N KRISHNA LAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
LAWS(SC)-1994-11-13
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KERALA)
Decided on
November 17,1994
P N Krishna Lal
Appellant
VERSUS
Governmet of Kerala
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
LOUIS BEAVER V. THE QUEEN [REFERRED TO]BANK NATIONALISATION'S CASE AND MENAKA GANDHI V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SHAMBHU NATH MEHRA VS. STATE OF AJMER [REFERRED TO]
A S KRISHNA VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
C S D SWAMI VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
C I EMDEN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
DHANVANTRAI BALWANTRAI DESAI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SAJJAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
HARBHAJAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
V D JHINGAN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RUSTOM CAVASJEE COOPER RUSTOM CAVASJEE COOPER T M GURUBUXANI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
S L GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
JAGMOHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
KALI RAM VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL BATRA CHARLES GURMUKH SOBRAJ VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION:DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
BACHAN SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB AND MAL SINGH SUNIL BATRA NATHU SINGH KARTAR SINGH AND UJAGAR SINGH SHER SINGH SUNIL BATRA MAL SINGH NIRPAL SINGH JAGMOHAN SINGH UJAGAR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. WASUDEO RAMGHANDRA KAIDALWAR [REFERRED TO]
MITHU MITHU SURJIT SINGH SURJIT SINGH MUNAWAR HARUN SHAH KARNAIL SINGH ALIAS FAQIR SINGH JAVED AHMED ABDULHAMID PAWALE VS. STATE OF PUNJAB:UNION OF INDIA:STATE OF PUNJAB:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA:STATE OF PUNJAB:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
KEHAR SINGHTS VS. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. D T C MAZDOOR CONGRESS ANB [REFERRED TO]
K VEERASWAMI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KARTAR SINGH KRIPA SHANKAR RAI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
JILUBHAI NANBHAI KHACHAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
P SATYANARAYANA VS. P SOUNDARYAVALLI [REFERRED TO]
S KANAGARAJ AND VS. GOVT OF T N [REFERRED TO]
MINOO FRAMROZE BALSARA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
Commissioner of Income Tax and The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation VS. M/s. Makino Asia Pvt. Ltd. Now Amalagamated with Makino Machine Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. [LAWS(KAR)-2013-9-206] [REFERRED TO]KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI VS. SHIV SHAKTI KHANSARI UDYOG [LAWS(SC)-2012-8-53] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV SARIN VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(SC)-2011-8-78] [REFERRED TO]
KHALIQUZ ZAMAN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-10-90] [REFERRED TO]
GUTHA SUKENDER REDDY AND ORS. VS. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-5-20] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. RAJIV JASSI [LAWS(SC)-2016-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
HUMLOG TRUST PATNA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2010-1-96] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMU VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-4-31] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-4-459] [REFERRED TO]
D B BINU VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2002-7-67] [REFERRED TO]
GODAWAT PAN MASALA PRODUCTS I P LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2004-8-138] [REFERRED TO]
SKS MICROFINANCE LIMITED VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(TLNG)-2023-2-122] [REFERRED TO]
SAWAI MADHOPUR OIL AND PULSE INDUSTRIES VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-8-39] [REFERRED TO]
SAJEEV VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(SC)-2023-11-22] [REFERRED TO]
NAYA BANS SARV VYAPAR ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2012-11-57] [REFERRED TO]
JUSTIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2020-10-472] [REFERRED TO]
SWASTIK AGENCY VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(ORI)-2009-1-7] [REFERRED TO]
SARAL MANUFACTURING CO VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1998-11-22] [REFERRED TO]
DHARIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2002-9-114] [REFERRED TO]
JOHN SRAMPIKAL VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2024-6-85] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV S/O KAPILDEV GUPTA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2014-11-117] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-11-305] [REFERRED TO]
BYRRAJU RAMALINGA RAJU VS. STATE [LAWS(APH)-2010-4-20] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. RUNU GHOSH VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(DLH)-2009-9-390] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF SIKKIM VS. SUREN RAI [LAWS(SIK)-2018-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDAR LAL VS. STATE [LAWS(UTN)-2018-1-32] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. V S R MURTHY [LAWS(SC)-2001-9-2] [REFERRED]
THIRU MURUGA FINANCE VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2000-9-49] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY C PULJAL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-9-100] [REFERRED TO]
MOTURI DURGA DEVI VS. STATE OF AP [LAWS(APH)-2024-9-66] [REFERRED TO]
ZAKIRHUSSAIN VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2003-3-43] [REFERRED TO]
K SRINIVAS VS. GOVERNMENT OF AP [LAWS(APH)-2007-11-98] [REFERRED TO]
T ASHOK PAI VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE [LAWS(SC)-2007-5-185] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP N. SHROFF KARTA OF N. D. SHROFF VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(SC)-2007-5-203] [REFERRED TO]
SHER SINGH @ PARTAPA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2015-1-23] [REFERRED TO]
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-12-75] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-3-44] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-470] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM KISHORE TIWARI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-1-363] [REFERRED TO]
U P PUBLIC SCHOOLS SOCIETY VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-7-151] [REFERRED TO]
K SRINIVAS VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2007-11-18] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M.P. VS. SONU [LAWS(MPH)-2019-3-183] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA BABU VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2008-3-73] [REFERRED TO]
U SUVETHA VS. STATE [LAWS(SC)-2009-5-221] [REFERRED TO]
E KALIVARATHAN VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2014-12-233] [REFERRED TO]
MOUNA K.L. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-7-864] [REFERRED TO]
MANISHA SHARMA VS. COMMISSIONER OF DELHI POLICE [LAWS(DLH)-2015-11-187] [REFERRED TO]
VENKATA NAGA MALLESWARI ANAMARIPUDI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2023-11-86] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ASSAM VS. CHHOTABHAI JETHABHAI PATEL TOBACCO PRODUCTS CO LTD [LAWS(GAU)-2007-8-33] [REFERRED TO]
T MURUGAN VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2011-5-239] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-270] [REFERRED TO]
TRIPURA GOODS TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION VS. COMMISSIONER OF TAXES [LAWS(SC)-1998-12-24] [RELIED ON]
KAMADHENU TRADERS VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-11-126] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. KAMY SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS P LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2007-12-200] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL GOODS TRANSPORT CO. VS. STATE OF J AND K [LAWS(J&K)-2003-5-20] [REFERRED TO]
AJAN BHATTACHARYA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2006-6-45] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ASSAM VS. TUMDA SAW AND VENNER MILLS [LAWS(GAU)-2002-1-21] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-82] [REFERRED TO]
PLANTERS FORUM VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2014-11-264] [REFERRED TO]
EXCEL ASSAY AND HALLMARKING CENTRE VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [LAWS(KER)-2013-2-165] [REFERRED TO]
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INSPECTION INVESTIGATION VS. A B SHANTHI [LAWS(SC)-2002-5-42] [REFERRED]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. NIRMAL KUMAR GUPTA [LAWS(SC)-2013-1-15] [REFERRED TO]
SELVI J JAYALALITHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2006-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN DEVI VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2002-12-25] [REFERRED TO]
V K GEMINI VS. CHANDRAN [LAWS(KER)-2006-7-19] [REFERRED TO]
SAI TRADERS VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-6-111] [REFERRED TO]
SWAPAN BER VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2024-3-62] [REFERRED TO]
MONOHAR MONDAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2024-2-90] [REFERRED TO]
J K CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTOR AND SRI S V RANGA REDDY VS. UNION OF INDIA UOI [LAWS(ALL)-2006-2-272] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI VS. KANHAIYA LAL GUPTA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2023-7-164] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
K. Ramaswamy, J. -
(1.)Leave grantedin S.L.Ps. No. 10248, 9079, 13769/94 and S.L.P. No.........(CC No. 25558/94).
(2.)A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, by its common judgment dated December 10, 1993 in O.P. No. 4637/89 and batch since upheld the constitutionality of Ss. 57A and 57B inserted by the Abkari (Amendment) Act 21 of 1984 in the Amendment Act into the Abkari Act 1 of 1077 (for short the Act, the correctness of that judgment is question in this appeal. The facts lie in a short compass:- The appellants are licencees of arrack or Indian made foreign liquor retail shops or their employees. They have been charged for offences punishable under one or other sub-ss. (1) to (3) of S. 57A for having mixed or permitted mixing of noxious substance with liquor or for having failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent such mixing or for being in possession of liquor in which such a noxious substance has been mixed with the knowledge that arrack or Indian made foreign liquors were mixed with methanol (methyl alcohol, a substance which, on consumption, is likely to endanger human life or causes grievous hurt to human beings or causes death. Therefore, when the appellants were charged for all or any of the offences in one or the other case, before competent criminal courts, the constitutionality of the said two provisions of the Amendment Act was assailed.
(3.)It is the case of the appellants that though they are dealers in arrack or Indian made foreign liquors either selling in retail shops or under their management, such arrack or Indian made foreign liquor was being supplied by the appropriate agencies controlled by the State or regulated under the Act. They secured the supply only from those recognised sources in sealed bottles or containers. They did not mix noxious substance nor permitted mixing of any noxious substance with arrack or Indian made foreign liquor. As such, there was no occasion for them to take any reasonable precaution to prevent such mixing or for being in possession of such arrack or liquor mixed with noxious substance with such knowledge and that, therefore, they had not committed all or any of the offences. However, before being proceeded with the trial of the offences they filed writ petitions under Art. 226 challenging the constitutionality of the aforesaid two provisions, which as said earlier, were upheld by the High Court.
(2.)A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, by its common judgment dated December 10, 1993 in O.P. No. 4637/89 and batch since upheld the constitutionality of Ss. 57A and 57B inserted by the Abkari (Amendment) Act 21 of 1984 in the Amendment Act into the Abkari Act 1 of 1077 (for short the Act, the correctness of that judgment is question in this appeal. The facts lie in a short compass:- The appellants are licencees of arrack or Indian made foreign liquor retail shops or their employees. They have been charged for offences punishable under one or other sub-ss. (1) to (3) of S. 57A for having mixed or permitted mixing of noxious substance with liquor or for having failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent such mixing or for being in possession of liquor in which such a noxious substance has been mixed with the knowledge that arrack or Indian made foreign liquors were mixed with methanol (methyl alcohol, a substance which, on consumption, is likely to endanger human life or causes grievous hurt to human beings or causes death. Therefore, when the appellants were charged for all or any of the offences in one or the other case, before competent criminal courts, the constitutionality of the said two provisions of the Amendment Act was assailed.
(3.)It is the case of the appellants that though they are dealers in arrack or Indian made foreign liquors either selling in retail shops or under their management, such arrack or Indian made foreign liquor was being supplied by the appropriate agencies controlled by the State or regulated under the Act. They secured the supply only from those recognised sources in sealed bottles or containers. They did not mix noxious substance nor permitted mixing of any noxious substance with arrack or Indian made foreign liquor. As such, there was no occasion for them to take any reasonable precaution to prevent such mixing or for being in possession of such arrack or liquor mixed with noxious substance with such knowledge and that, therefore, they had not committed all or any of the offences. However, before being proceeded with the trial of the offences they filed writ petitions under Art. 226 challenging the constitutionality of the aforesaid two provisions, which as said earlier, were upheld by the High Court.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.