Tanvi Sinha
A division bench in Kerala High Court held that in a case of adulteration of Toddy, a palm wine in Kerala, the Accused in the case does not have any legal right to ask for the Sample B chemical analysis.
The division bench of Justice A Hariprasad and Justice MR Anitha thus settled the conflicting judgements that were passed by different single bench judges on the case.
The contention arose from Rule 8 of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules which states that two samples of toddy should be taken in cases of suspected adulteration.
The accused asking for the B type sample is not uncommon, as the results of the B type sample often differ from the result of the A-type sample.
For this reason, the prosecution had opposed the demand for the B type sample as they believed that due to the passage of time between the two tests, the chemicals in the toddy would decompose and would result in an inaccurate analysis.
The judges of the bench however noted that while both samples are told to be tested under Rule 8 of the Abkari Rules, the accused was only entitled to demanding results of Sample A and not that of Sample B.
Keeping this in mind the bench stated that the accused could not demand a second sample.
Toddy has had a dangerous history of adulteration with chemicals like Chloral Hydrate, Diazepam and Alprazolam in it, which has caused a serious health impact on those consuming it.
According to a report from the Hindu in 2012, an observer near Kothapet (an area favoured for toddy) would daily see three to four people lying unconscious near the toddy compound.