Pertinently, the Court also made some significant observations about the Abkari Act, particularly regarding severe restrictions on bail under the Act notwithstanding the fact that the procedure for search and seizure doesn’t have the same rigour as that under a similar statute like the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
Justice Kunhikrishnan opined that a majority of the cases registered under the Abkari Act usually follow a stereotypical set of allegations.
In the case of the two petitioners too, the allegations were similar and after further investigation, the Excise officials found beyond any reasonable doubt that the allegation against the petitioners were false and it was a foisted case against the petitioners at the instance of their enemies.
“Now, if an Abkari officer is having enmity with a person, he can easily implicate that person as an accused if there is a bottle and small quantity of illicit liquor. These two cases are the classic examples in which two innocent citizens were implicated falsely in an Abkari case,” the Court said.
The Court noted that the sentence that can be imposed by the Court in Abkari cases is severe. Section 41A of the Abkari Act contemplates serious restrictions for granting bail to an accused.
Therefore the Court directed the State government to conduct a study into the situation and file an action taken report on the same within a period of six months.
“In such situation, in my opinion, a detailed study or enquiry is necessary by a competent person appointed by the State about the manner in which arrest, seizure, investigation, etc in abkari cases have been made at least for the last 5 years and whether there is any further change in the mode of investigation is necessary,” the Court ordered.
Source: Barandbench
