KOCHI: The Kerala High Court has flayed the police for not proceeding against excise officials in a case related to stealing 20,386 litres of spirit during its transport from Madhya Pradesh to Travancore Sugars and Chemicals Ltd (TSCL), Thiruvalla, allegedly in connivance with some officials of the company.
"Confession statements of first to third accused persons clearly suggest that such pilferage had taken place numerous times in the past. Still, criminal proceedings are initiated only against the drivers and officials of the company. Of course, the purchaser of the stolen property is a party, but leaving out officials of the excise department, who are attached to the company, is an aspect casting aspersions on the bona fides of the prosecuting agency, at least at this stage," said Justice K Haripal.
The court made the observation while granting anticipatory bail to Alex P Abraham, general manager, PU Hashim, manager (personnel and administration), and Megha Murali, deputy manager (production), who are the fourth, fifth and sixth accused respectively in the case.
The court said the quantity and quality of the consignment taken inside the company have to be certified so by the excise official in charge and also the deputy manager (production). But the excise officials have been left out, for which there was no justification. The grievance of the petitioners was that proceedings were taken arbitrarily as the excise officials went scot-free.
There were also reasons to think that even earlier, such pilferages on a large scale had taken place. The confession statement of the third accused indicates that he used to make it up by adding water to the spirit and diluted spirit was given when spirit as such was sold or given for making sanitiser. It is doubtful that such acts could be done by the third accused alone with impunity.
The court noted that a verification certificate issued by the excise officer is a very important document to ascertain the quantity and strength of the spirit supplied to the company. But no such verification was conducted. The petitioner's counsel pointed out that there are four excise inspectors attached to the company who work in turn. At least at this stage, none of the excise officials who are bound to give verification certificates has been proceeded against. The court said that there was considerable substance in the contention that if the officials of the company are responsible, there is equal or culpability on the part of the excise officials who are bound to supervise matters and give verification certificates.
The prosecution cited the report of the Legal Metrology Department stating that machinery to measure the consignment taken into the company remains defective for long and petitioners have not taken steps to rectify the same. As per Rule 14 of the Kerala Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2012, it is the statutory obligation on the part of the company/user of the weight or measure to report to the Legal Metrology Officer at least thirty days in advance of the date, on which the verification falls due. According to the records, the same was not re-verified and stamped from 2005 onwards.
The company has deliberately failed to submit an application for re-verification and calibration of the weighbridge in its possession before the Legal Metrology Officer concerned in time. "This demonstrates a very sorry state of affairs. There is criminal negligence on the part of the officials of the company," observed the court. The case diary indicates that even for the present purpose, since the weighbridge in the company is not working, the weight of the contents was taken by taking the lorry to a private weighbridge at Muthoor, Thiruvalla. In other words, from 2005 onwards, such verification was not done.
The third accused, who is only a temporary employee, cunningly took advantage of such lapses on the part of the petitioners. The General Manager, the fourth accused, admitted that he is the head of the institution, but he has pleaded that he does not have any acquaintance with transporting, loading and unloading raw materials, which are brought to the company. "It is a pity that such a person is kept at the helm of affairs of the company. But it has come out that it was the committee headed by him which had accepted the quotes and fixed the price quoted by tenderers," observed the court.
The court further asked, "How could a daily wage employee, who is the third accused, be assigned an onerous responsibility of verifying the quantity of the consignment or kept in charge of the warehouse?"