CHENNAI: Caught in a fix after an earlier order by the Madras High Court was interpreted as if anyone can carry up to 4.5 litres of liquor from Puducherry to Tamil Nadu, the State government rushed to the court requesting immediate hearing of its clarification plea. The court has agreed to hear the plea on Wednesday.
During a routine check at the Allpettai check post near the Puducherry–Tamil Nadu border in Cuddalore, the police stopped a vehicle driven by Vallarasu, a resident of Kattumylore in Cuddalore. When they checked, the officials found one bottle of brandy (750 ml), one bottle of rum (750 ml), and one bottle of rum (180 ml).
As they were liquor sold in Puducherry, the sale of which is banned in Tamil Nadu, the police seized the bottles and booked a case against Vallarasu. While the case was pending trial before the Judicial Magistrate–II, Cuddalore, he approached the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings.
When the case came up for hearing, the court noted that as per the Government Order of 2017, a person can lawfully carry a maximum of 4.5 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) for personal use. However, in the present case, the petitioner was found in possession of only 1.68 litres of liquor, the court pointed out and quashed the FIR against Vallarasu.
Even as the order spread cheers among tipplers and concern among officials, State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, representing the police, mentioned the matter before Justice M Nirmal Kumar, requesting him to hear the clarification petition at the earliest.
Jinnah informed the court that its order had been misconstrued, and that the Government Order permitting possession of up to 4.5 litres applies only to liquor procured from within the State and not to liquor brought from Puducherry.
It was further contended that possession or sale of liquor from other states, even in minimal quantities, constitutes an offence under the existing law, as has already been clarified by the State.
Recording the submission of the State Public Prosecutor, the court permitted the clarification petition to be listed for hearing on April 29.