The Kerala High Court has directed the State government to pay a compensation of ₹2,50,000 each to two persons from Kollam for keeping them in illegal custody after falsely implicating them in Abkari cases by excise officials.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan also directed the State government to conduct a study/enquiry about the search, seizure, arrest and investigation made in Abkari cases in the past five years by appointing an appropriate person and do the needful in accordance with the law. The action taken report should be submitted before the court in six weeks, the court ordered.
The court pointed out that in 70% to 90% of Abkari cases, the independent witnesses turned hostile. This was a serious concern, which had to be looked into by the government and legislature, and the manner in which the search, seizure and investigation in the Abkari cases were conducted should be revisited.
Recover from officers
The court directed the State government to recover the compensation amount from the excise officers who were responsible for registering false cases against the petitioners.
The court passed the verdict while disposing of writ petitions filed by Anilkumar A.B. and R. Prakash from Kollam. According to them, they were implicated in the case in 2006 at the behest of persons who were arrested by the excise officers for illicit distillation of arrack on a complaint filed by them. While Anilkumar was kept in custody for 55 days, Prakash was kept in custody for 76 days. In fact, the Excise department had initiated disciplinary proceedings against excise officers and denied them two increments after conducting an inquiry following a complaint submitted to the government.
The court observed that there was no dispute regarding the arrest of the petitioners and their custody. Similarly, there was no dispute that subsequently, the Excise machinery itself found that the petitioners were innocent and that they were falsely implicated. In such circumstances, no further evidence was necessary to conclude that there was a violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution to the petitioners. Besides, it was an admitted fact that the registration of case against the petitioners was made with some ulterior motive and it was a false case registered against them at the instance of some other persons.
