Competent Authority Can Opt Other Officers For Surprise Check: Kerala HC Refuses to Quash Corruption Case Against Excise Officer

On the challenge to the surprise check, the Court examined Clause 16 of G.O.(P) No. 65/92/Vig. dated 12-05-1992 and said that the provision uses the word “may” and not “shall”, which made consultation with a higher authority directory and not mandatory. The Vigilance Officer was therefore competent to associate another suitable officer for the surprise check, and no fatal procedural irregularity was made out, the Bench noted.

Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “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 office of the first accused and also from the other accused”.

“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”, the Bench observed.

Advocate V. Sethunath appeared for the petitioner and Rajesh, Special Public Prosecutor, Rekha S., Senior Public Prosecutor appeared for the respondent.

In the matter, a complaint was registered by a warehouse manager alleging that excise officials were demanding liquor bottles as bribes for issuing transport permits for consignments. During a surprise check conducted on 18-12-2024, vigilance officials allegedly recovered liquor bottles from the possession and office of the accused and co-accused.

The prosecution claimed that the bottles had been unlawfully obtained as gratification in connection with official duties.

Therefore, now before the Bench, the petitioner argued that the allegations were false and motivated, pointing out that he had previously submitted reports against the complainant for failing to sell older stock of liquor and thereby causing financial loss to the Government. He also contended that the surprise check violated vigilance guidelines, as no officer from the Excise Department was associated with the inspection.

The Court, however, rejecting these arguments, found that the petitioner’s claim regarding loss caused by delayed sale of old stock lacked merit, since even after opening, the liquor may lose flavour over time but does not become unsafe. In such circumstances, the Court held that the petitioner’s reports alleging loss to the Government did not carry significance.

The Court further held that Clause 16 of the Vigilance Manual, which states that vigilance officers “may” consult higher departmental authorities before conducting a surprise check, is directory and not mandatory. Therefore, associating an officer from another department familiar with the relevant procedures did not render the surprise check illegal.

Accordingly, on finding no grounds to interfere, the Court dismissed the petition and allowed the vigilance investigation to proceed in accordance with law.

Cause Title: Unaize Ahammed v. State Of Kerala [Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:10903]

Appearances:

Petitioner: V. Sethunath, Thomas Abraham, Sreeganesh U., Atheesha M. V., Advocates.

Respondent: Rajesh, Special Public Prosecutor, Rekha S., Senior Public Prosecutor.

Click here to read/download the Order