‘Caught red-handed’: Why Kerala High Court refused to save excise inspector found with bribe of 2 liquor bottles

Case: ‘Surprise check, recovery of two liquor bottles’

• A surprise check report was carried out by the police concerned in December 2024, acting on a complaint filed by one Amal Krishna B, manager of a warehouse alleging that three accused, including Ahammed were demanding a bribe in the form of brandy bottles as a bribe for issuing permits for transporting a load of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) bottles on trucks out of the KSBC warehouse to retail outlets and bars.

• It was mentioned in the report following this surprise check that two bottles of DDUS Joan of Arc VS Brandy of 1000 ml each were recovered from the office of the petitioner, and two more such bottles were recovered from the office table of another accused.
• All 4 bottles of liquor were seized and were found to be issued to a BEVCO outlet for supply.

Observation: ‘Petitioner caught red-handed’

• The court noted that the FIR stated that Brandy bottles were demanded while transporting, but the prosecution records would show that the same were demanded and accepted by the accused, including the petitioner, after reloading the same in Palluruthi.
• It is found true as per the evidence placed on record that the petitioner had lodged six reports against the complainant, and the allegations were that he had failed to sell the old stock and thereby kept the old stock to cause loss to the government.
• There is no expiry date for IMFL, and therefore, there cannot be any loss even if there is any failure to sell the old stock.
• It is noticeable that unopened IMFL like whiskey, rum and vodka generally do not have a formal expiry date and can last for many years if stored properly.
• If they are opened, however, the quality, flavour, and alcohol content may begin to degrade after one-two years. It does not become unsafe to drink, but its taste would diminish.
• This clearly suggests that the report sent by the petitioner lacks significance.
• The relevant rules state that the vigilance department may meet an appropriate higher authority of the department concerned and furnish him with the relevant details and the type of surprise check which was recommended in the case.
• The competent authority can opt for other officers for a surprise check, and hence, there are no procedural irregularities in this case.

• Mere irrelevant procedural irregularities would not vitiate proceedings unless the same have an absolute deterrent effect to destroy the prosecution’s case in total.
• There was a red-handed recovery of the transported item from the petitioner’s office, and therefore, the request to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings cannot be considered.

‘No trap, procedural irregularity in surprise check’

• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate V Sethunath submitted that the allegations against his client are baseless.
• He emphasised that, as per the prosecution allegations, the quantity of the liquors were transported from Thripunithura to Palluruthi.
• However, the entire quantity of 36 bottles was unloaded at Palluruthi and was entered in the stock register of Palluruthi Foreign Liquor Shop, which makes the recovery of 2 bottles from the petitioner impossible.
• It was further argued that the evidence placed on record by the petitioner would show that he had filed six reports against the complainant on finding that the old stocks were kept by him without selling the same, after selling the new items, leading to the loss sustained by the Government.
• He pointed out that the complaint stemmed from animosity and is not supported by any evidence placed on record.
  Sethunath also argued that there is procedural irregularity in the surprise check and it violates the relevant rules, which required the police officer concerned to take assistance from the excise department itself.
• He also mentioned that the relevant rules in this regard suggest that the investigating officer should arrange a trap and proceed further to prove the allegations, and therefore, the entire proceedings are an abuse of the process of the court.

‘Surprise check in accordance with the law’

• On the contrary, the Special Public Prosecutor Rajesh argued that the surprise check was done as per the guidelines issued in the relevant laws, as the police officer sought assistance from the regional manager, who is an officer having an acquaintance with the sale of liquor and other procedures related to it.
• It was further submitted that one Hareesh H, excise official of the circle inspector, after the 36 bottles were stocked, said that there was a practice of giving liquor to the officers and on the said premises, two bottles of DDUS Joan of Arc VS Brandy of 1000 ml each were entrusted to the accused.