Natural toddy fermentation and invalid alcohol ceiling defeated prosecution and quashing followed under the Kerala Abkari framework.

A rigid delegated rule fixing toddy's maximum ethyl alcohol content at 8.1% v/v was held arbitrary and unenforceable because natural fermentation causes variable alcohol levels and the ceiling ignored scientific fluctuation. On that basis, prosecution could not be sustained under Section 57(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act, as the allegation showed only excess natural alcohol content and no adulteration or foreign ingredient. Prosecution under Section 56(b) also failed because the alleged licence breach depended entirely on the invalid ceiling. The criminal proceedings and the challenged report were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Rule 9(2) of the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 2002, insofar as it fixed the maximum ethyl alcohol content in toddy drawn from coconut palms at 8.1% v/v, was arbitrary, unreasonable and unenforceable; (ii) whether the petitioners could be prosecuted under Section 57(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act for the alleged excess alcohol content; and (iii) whether the petitioners could be prosecuted under Section 56(b) of the Kerala Abkari Act for breach of licence conditions based on the same allegation.

Issue (i): Whether Rule 9(2) of the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 2002, insofar as it fixed the maximum ethyl alcohol content in toddy drawn from coconut palms at 8.1% v/v, was arbitrary, unreasonable and unenforceable.

Analysis: The rule fixed a rigid maximum limit without accommodating the natural and variable process of fermentation in toddy, including seasonal variation, timing of tapping, and the self-generated nature of alcohol content. The material placed before the Court, including the Excise Manual and the accepted scientific position regarding toddy fermentation, showed that alcohol content may fluctuate and may even rise naturally up to a higher level. In that backdrop, the inflexible ceiling of 8.1% v/v, without any margin of variability, lacked reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved and rendered the rule unworkable in its application.

Conclusion: Rule 9(2) was held to be arbitrary and unreasonable to the extent it prescribed 8.1% v/v as the maximum ethyl alcohol content in toddy drawn from coconut palms, and was therefore illegal and unenforceable to that extent.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners could be prosecuted under Section 57(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act for the alleged excess alcohol content.

Analysis: Section 57(a) applies where there is mixing or permitting to be mixed with liquor of a drug, foreign ingredient, or other prohibited substance likely to add to intoxicating quality or strength. The analysis report only showed higher ethyl alcohol content and did not disclose adulteration, admixture, or the presence of any noxious or foreign ingredient. Since the allegation was confined to the natural alcohol content of toddy and did not satisfy the ingredients of Section 57(a), the prosecution could not be sustained under that provision.

Conclusion: The petitioners were held not liable to be prosecuted under Section 57(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act.

Issue (iii): Whether the petitioners could be prosecuted under Section 56(b) of the Kerala Abkari Act for breach of licence conditions based on the same allegation.

Analysis: Section 56(b) penalises wilful breach of licence conditions not otherwise provided for in the Act. The alleged breach rested entirely on Rule 9(2). Since that rule was found unenforceable to the extent of the rigid 8.1% v/v ceiling, the foundation for invoking Section 56(b) also failed. Without a valid and enforceable licence-condition breach, prosecution under Section 56(b) could not stand.

Conclusion: The petitioners were held not liable to be prosecuted under Section 56(b) of the Kerala Abkari Act.

Final Conclusion: The criminal proceedings were unsustainable, the challenged report was quashed, and the petitioners obtained complete relief from prosecution on the basis of the impugned alcohol-content allegation.

Ratio Decidendi: A rigid condition in delegated legislation fixing a natural and variable product's permissible alcohol content, without accounting for inherent scientific fluctuation, is arbitrary and unenforceable, and a prosecution predicated solely on such invalid condition cannot be sustained in the absence of statutory ingredients of adulteration or breach independent of that condition.

---