[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Unaize Ahammed vs State Of Kerala on 20 February, 2026
CRL.M.C. NO. 1298 OF 2026 2026:KER:10903
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 1298 OF 2026
CRIME NO.4/2025 OF VACB, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 1:
UNAIZE AHAMMED
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O MUKKTHAR AHAMMED , ELAYEDATH HOUSE,
PURAKKAD.P.O, ALAPPUHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 688561
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.SETHUNATH
SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (K/1051/2010)
SHRI.SREEGANESH U.
SMT.ATHEESHA M.V.
RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO VIGILANCE
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR
VIGILANCE ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU,
VIKAS BHAVAN, PMG LAW COLLEGE ROAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695033
Crl. M.C. No. 1298 of 2026
2 2026:KER:15671
3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, (VIGILANCE & ANTI
CORRUPTION BUREAU)
ERNAKULUM UNIT,, 38/2871, CBI RD, NEAR CBI
OFFICE, KATHRIKADAVU, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682017
4 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (DYSP)
VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, ERNAKULUM
UNIT,, 38/2871, CBI RD, NEAR CBI OFFICE,
KATHRIKADAVU, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682017
BY SRI. RAJESH, SPEICAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BY SMT. REKHA S., SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 10.02.2026, THE COURT ON 20.02.2026 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl. M.C. No. 1298 of 2026
3 2026:KER:15671
'C.R.'
ORDER
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2026
This Crl.M.C. No. 1298/2026 has been filed by the
first accused in Crime No. 04/2025/EKM of V.A.C.B,
Ernakulam Unit and the prayers herein are to quash the
FIR and further proceedings and also to grant such other
reliefs in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Special Public Prosecutor in detail.
Perused the prosecution records as well as the records
produced by the petitioner.
3. In a nut shell, this crime was registered based
on Annexure A2 surprise check report, carried out by the
Inspector of Police- III, VACB, Ernakulam Unit as on
18.12.2024, acting on a complaint filed by Sri. Amal
Krishna B, Manager FL 09 Warehouse, Petta,
Thripunithura Branch, dated 18.12.2024.
4 2026:KER:15671
4. Paragraph Nos. 3 to 9 of the report submitted
by the respondent No. 4 speak of the genesis and follow
up steps of the case are extracted hereunder:-
"3. A petition was submitted by Amal Krishna B,
Manager FL 09 Warehouse, Petta, Tripunithura on
18.12.2024. The petition was acknowledged by my
predecessor as per receipt no. 3001/24/ΕΚΜ. The
allegation in the petition is that 1. Shri. Unaize Ahammed,
Excise Circle Inspector, KSBC FL-9 Warehouse, Petta,
Tripunithura, 2. Shri. Sabu Kuriakose, Excise Preventive
Officer, KSBC FL-9 Warehouse, Petta, Tripunithura. 3.
Shri. Hareesh H, Civil Excise Officer, KSBC FL-9
Warehouse, Petta, Tripunithura were demanding bribe in
the form of IMFL bottles as bribe for issuing permits for
transporting load of IMFL bottles on trucks out of KSBC
warehouse to retail outlets and bars.
4. On the basis of the petition, as ordered by Director,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, a Surprise Check
No. 51/2024/EKM was jointly conducted by
Sri.Santhoshkumar. V. Asst. Regional Manager, Supplyco
Regional Office, Ernakulam and Sri. Ziya Ul Haq,
Inspector of Police-III, Vigilance and Anti- Corruption
Bureau, Ernakulam Unit, on 18.12.2024. Two bottles of
IMFL was recovered from the bag of Shri. Unaize
Ahammed, Excise Circle Inspector, KSBC FL-9
Warehouse, Petta, Tripunithura(petitioner herein) and two
more bottles of IMFL was recovered from the bottom
5 2026:KER:15671
portion of the office table used by Shri. Sabu Kuriakose,
Excise Preventive Officer, KSBC FL-9 Warehouse, Petta,
Tripunithura. Thus, 4 bottles of IMFL were seized. Later it
was found that the liquor bottles were issued to a BEVCO
outlet for supply.
5. After enquiries and post- verification, Shri. Ziya Ul
Haq, Inspector of Police-III, VACB Unit, Ernakulam
prepared and submitted Ext.P2 report mentioned in the
petition. He reported certain irregularities in the report.
6. An F.I.R was registered on the basis of irregularities
found in the Surprise Check as VC No. 04/2025/EKM U/s
7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The F.I.R was
registered by Sri. N.R. Jayaraj, the then Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
Bureau, Ernakulum Unit on 17.02.2025, against 1. Shri.
Unaize Ahammed, Excise Circle Inspector, KSBC FL-9
Warehouse, Petta, Tripunithura, 2. Shri. Sabu Kuriakose,
Excise Preventive Officer, KSBC FL-9 Warehouse, Petta,
Tripunithura. 3. Shri. Hareesh H, Civil Excise Officer,
KSBC FL-9 Warehouse, Petta, Tripunithura.
7. Investigation of the case was entrusted to Sri.
Vinod. C, Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption Bureau, Ernakulam Unit on 17.02.2025 itself.
8. It was mentioned at the preamble part of the report
of Surprise Check conducted on 18.12.2024 that the
Surprise Check was conducted on the basis of the petition
alleging demand of bribe in the form of IMFL bottles by
Excise personnel posted at Kerala State Beverage
Corporation Warehouse, Tripunithura for issuing
6 2026:KER:15671
Transport Permit of consignment of loads containing IMFL
bottles to various outlets of BEVCO.
9. Due to an inadvertent clerical mistake in the
Surprise Check report, date and time was wrongly
mentioned as "morning of 22.8.2024 at 02.00 hours". But
in the joint inventory prepared by Sri. Santhoshkumar.V,
Asst. Regional Manager, Supplyco Regional Office,
Ernakulam and Sri. Ziya Ul Haq, Inspector of Police-III,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau Ernakulam Unit, it
was correctly described that the Surprise Check was
started at 16.15 hrs on 18.12.2024."
5. It is on this premises the prosecution alleges
commission of offence under Section 7 of the Prevention
of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 [hereinafter, for
short, 'P.C.(Amendment) Act, 2018'] by the accused in
the crime.
6. The prime contention raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the entire allegations are
baseless. According to him, as per the prosecution
allegations, the quantity of the liquors as shown in
Annexure A5 were transported from Thripunithura to
Palluruthi. As per Serial No. 20 in Annexure A5, 36 bottles
7 2026:KER:15671
of DDUS Joan of Arc VS Brandy 1000 ml each having
hologram Nos.6656584 to 6656619, with green colour,
were transported from Thripunithura to Palluruthi as on
18.12.2024. Then the entire quantity of 36 bottles were
unloaded at Palluruthi and were entered in the stock
register of Palluruthi Foreign Liquor Shop, as could be
seen from Annexure A7, item No. 469. Thus, the learned
counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the
transported items, as per Annexure A5, reached as per
Annexure A7, the allegation of the prosecution that two
bottles among the same having hologram Nos. 6656610
and 6656609 (in the report while narrating this number,
an omission occurred and the number was stated as
'665609' and both sides concede the correct number as
'6656609') were recovered from the petitioner herein
during surprise check is an outright impossibility.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
Annexure A9 produced by the petitioner, along
8 2026:KER:15671
Crl.M.Appln.No.1/2026, would show that the petitioner
had filed six reports against the defacto complainant on
finding that the old stocks were kept by him without
selling the same, after selling the new items, and thereby,
loss was sustained to the Government. It is pointed out
that, in view of the animosity arose out of these reports,
this case has been foisted without support of any
material.
7. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, in this case, there is anomaly in the surprise
check, as the same is in violation of the guidelines issued
as per G.O.(P) No. 65/92/Vig., dated 12.05.1992, as
nobody from the Excise Department was taken assistance
of by the Inspector of Police, VACB and therefore, there is
procedural irregularity in the surprise check itself to make
the same as non-est. It is pointed out further that in
order to bring home offences under Sections 7 and 7A of
the P.C.(Amendment) Act, 2018, the Investigating Officer
9 2026:KER:15671
should have to arrange a trap and proceed further to
prove the allegations. In the present case, the entire
proceedings are abuse of process of Court and in such
view of the matter, the prayer for quashing the FIR is
liable to be succeeded.
8. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned
Special Public Prosecutor that insofar as, Annexure A2
surprise check report is concerned, the Inspector of Police
sought assistance of the Regional Manager, Supplyco,
Regional Office, Ernakulam, Sri.Santhosh Kumar and he is
an officer having acquaintance with the sale of liquor and
other procedures and therefore, it could not be said that
there is violation of the guidelines issued under G.O.(P)
No. 65/92/Vig. dated 12.05.1992. It is specifically pointed
out that in this case, two bottles of DDUS Joan of Arc VS
Brandy of 1000 ml each, bearing hologram Nos. 6656610
and 6656609 were recovered from the office of the first
accused and the staff who has been working in Kerala
10 2026:KER:15671
Beverages Corporation Limited, Fort Kochi Branch given
statement that on getting stock of 36 numbers of DDUS
Joan of Arc VS Brandy of 1000 ml each, the Excise Circle
Inspector through one Hareesh H., an Excise Official of
the Circle Inspector, (It is under this Excise Inspector,
Beverages Corporation, Palluruthi Branch situates) met
him and demanded that there was a practice of giving
liquors to the officers and according to him, on the said
premises Hareesh H., demanded two bottles of DDUS
Joan of Arc VS Brandy of 1000 ml each to the petitioner
and accordingly, two bottles of DDUS Joan of Arc VS
Brandy of 1000 ml each having hologram Nos. 6656610
and 6656609 were entrusted to him. It is pointed out that
it was thereafter on surprise check, the above brandy
bottles were recovered from the office of the petitioner
along with two other bottles of other brand. Moreover,
the two bottles of DDUS Joan of Arc VS Brandy of 1000 ml
each having hologram Nos. 6656606 and 6656608 were
11 2026:KER:15671
recovered from Sabu Kuriakose, another officer of the
Excise and it was found that those bottles of liquor were
transported from Thripunithura to Palluruthi. It is pointed
out further that, thus the prosecution case is prima facie
made out and in this case, quashment of FIR at this stage
is liable to fail.
9. On the crux of the matter, it could be seen that
on getting a complaint filed by Sri. Amal Krishna B,
Manager FL 09 Warehouse, Petta, Thripunithura Branch
on 18.12.2024, the Circle Inspector, VACB, conducted a
surprise check along with the Assistant Regional
Manager, Supplyco, the Regional Office, Ernakulam, Sri.
Santhosh Kumar and on search of the office of the first
accused, two bottles of DDUS Joan of Arc VS Brandy of
1000 ml each, with hologram Nos. 6656610 and 6656609
were recovered from the petitioner. In this connection,
Anoop Antony, who has been working as a staff in
Palluruthi, Beverages Corporation Outlet given statement
12 2026:KER:15671
that these items including two other items were handed
over to the petitioner by him. As regards the demand and
acceptance of brandy bottles, as alleged in this case, no
doubt, the same is an illegal gratification or an undue
pecuniary advantage. As per the FIR, it was 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.
10. Now the question to be considered is, whether
for violation of G.O.(P) No. 65/92/Vig. dated 12.05.1992,
if any, for the purpose of surprise check or the other
reasons urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the FIR is liable to be quashed ?. It is true that as per
Annexure A9 series, the petitioner lodged six reports
against the defacto complainant herein and the
allegations were that the petitioner had failed to sell the
old stock and thereby, kept the old stock so as to cause
13 2026:KER:15671
loss to the Government. On tracing the bonafides of this
contention, it is perceivable that there is no expiry date
for Indian Made Foreign Liquor, and then 'how there
would be a loss' even if any failure for selling the old
stock. It is noticeable that unopened Indian Made Foreign
Liquor (IMFL) like whiskey, rum and vodka generally do
not have a formal expiry date and can last for many years
if stored properly. Once opened, however, the quality,
flavor, and alcohol content may begin to degrade after 1-
2 years. It does not become unsafe to drink, but its taste
would diminish. Therefore, the report sent by the
petitioner lack significance.
11. Coming to Clause 16 of the G.O.(P) No.
65/92/Vig., dated 12.05.1992 which deals with Surprise
Check, it states 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 is recommended in the
14 2026:KER:15671
case. The word used is 'may' and not 'shall' and
therefore, it is not mandatory that the higher authority of
the department concerned must be opted by the officer
and as done in the instant case, the competent authority
can opt other officers for surprise check. Therefore,
there are no procedural irregularities in this case.
Otherwise mere irrelevant procedural irregularities would
not vitiate proceedings unless the same is having an
absolute deterrent effect to destroy the prosecution case
in toto. Thus, procedural irregularity of the nature alleged
is not a ground to quash an FIR without allowing the
investigation to reach a logical conclusion, in accordance
with law. Similarly, simply for the reason that some
reports were filed by the petitioner against the defacto
complainant, on earlier point of time, the same would not
be reckoned as grounds to treat the complaint in the
instant case as a false complaint particularly, when there
was red-handed recovery of the transported item from the
15 2026:KER:15671
office of the first accused and also from the other
accused.
In view of the above discussion, the prayer to quash
the FIR is liable to fail. Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. stands
dismissed, allowing investigation of the crime.
SD/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
DCS
16 2026:KER:15671
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 1298 OF 2026
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN
BY THE MANAGER OF THE K.S.B.C FL9 WARE
HOUSE
ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LIGHTNING
SURPRISE CHECK REPORT PREPARED BY THE
VIGILANCE DATED 18-12-2024
ANNEXURE A3 BTRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN 04/2025/EKM
OF V.A.C.B, ERNAKULUM UNIT FOR OFFENCE
UNDER SEC. 7 OF THE P.C ACT
ANNEXURE A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LEAVE SANCTION
ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY EXCISE
COMMISSIONER , ERNAKULUM DATED 24-12-
ANNEXURE A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY
THE EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR , KOCHI
ALONG WITH DOCUMENTS SOUGHT UNDER RTI
DATED 13-5-2025
ANNEXURE A6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION
GIVEN TO EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR
OFFICE, THRIPPUNITHURA AND RTI REPLY
ISSUED DATED 11-03-2025
ANNEXURE A7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY DATED
10-4-2025 ALONG WITH STOCK REGISTER
ISSUED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
ANNEXURE A8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER
ISSUED BY THE TAXES DEPARTMENT BASED
ON THE DIRECTION FROM THE VIGILANCE
DEPARTMENT DATED 28-1-2025
ANNEXURE A9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY
THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER DATED
12-07-2025 ALONG WITH INFORMATION
ANNEXURE A10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT
OF THE STOCK REGISTER AS ON 18-12-2014
& 19-12-2024
