Latest news with #PoisonAct
The Hindu
16-05-2025
- The Hindu
Drinking to death: on illicit liquor cases
Often described in media reports as 'hooch tragedies' or 'spurious liquor cases', the recurring incidents of illicit alcohol poisoning across India — most recently near Amritsar, Punjab, which claimed at least 23 lives — follow a grimly familiar pattern of poverty, greed, and regulatory failure. Each tragedy is eerily similar to the previous one, be it in terms of the socio-economic profile of the victims or the motivation of the perpetrators. The victims are typically poor, daily wage earners, seeking respite from the harsh realities of everyday drudgery. They are drawn by the lure of cheap alcohol, a vulnerability exploited by bootleggers, who are at the fag end of a long supply chain. These illicit brews often involve dangerous shortcuts, from incorporating toxic substances such as dead scorpions to diluting industrial methanol, a poisonous chemical that is deceptively similar to consumable ethanol. Methanol, easily pilfered and inexpensive, becomes a deadly profit source for bootleggers who may misjudge dilution ratios, leading to fatal consequences. The nexus among bootleggers, the police, and lower-level politicians is often apparent. While police negligence in Punjab has led to suspensions, these events are more about organised methanol theft in which the bootlegger is only the last mile operator. Methanol is not a drink; it is industrial alcohol, an intermediary in the petrochemical industry with extensive downstream use, and is, therefore, not illicit, except as an ingredient in hooch. It is categorised as a Class B poison in many States, but is cheaper than the liquor made biologically, mostly from molasses. After paying for the pilferage from authorised methanol dealers, bootleggers can still make a handsome profit. Legal proceedings in illicit liquor cases often involve murder and attempted murder charges, besides those under prohibition laws. Yet convictions, as seen in the 2015 Malvani case, can be elusive. A court acquitted 10 of the 14 accused after nine years. None was found guilty of violating the Poison Act. Since methanol production and delivery are inter-State affairs, there is a case for a central framework on methanol transport for preventing such pilferage as well as stringent State regulation. The Poison Act may add teeth to the prosecution's case. But what is more important is to ensure that the lawmaker-enforcer dyad is incorruptible so that illegal methanol distribution is impossible. Eventually though, it is the sorry economic, social and educational situation of victims that creates a market for unscrupulous agents to make money. This can only be eradicated by tackling poverty, social inequality, and the lack of access to education alongside systemic corruption within law enforcement.
Free Malaysia Today
08-05-2025
- Free Malaysia Today
Investigating officer's presence required at remand hearing, rules court
The High Court has set aside the remand of two suspects who were being investigated under the Poisons Act 1952 and Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ruling that it was unlawful. KUALA LUMPUR : The High Court here has set aside a magistrate's remand order, holding that the absence of the investigating officer at the hearing rendered the proceedings unlawful. Justice Jamil Hussin said Section 117(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code must be strictly complied with. 'Based on my reading, that provision only provides for the police officer conducting the investigation, and not any other policeman or representative of the investigating officer, to be present (at) a remand proceeding,' he said. In a revision application brought by two suspects, Jamil said the record of remand proceedings presided over by a magistrate at the Jinjang remand centre on Tuesday showed that the investigating officer was absent. 'Instead, a police sergeant major was present in the place of the investigating officer, Megat Nazmi Megat Aziz,' he said in the decision made yesterday evening. The suspects were being investigated under Section 30(3) of the Poisons Act 1952 and Section 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. On that basis, Jamil said, the magistrate should have dismissed the remand application. 'As such, the remand order to detain them for two days is also unlawful,' he said. The judge also dismissed the prosecution's submission that the revision application had become academic as the two suspects had been charged in court. 'This revision was filed on Tuesday, the same day as the remand was granted, when the two suspects were still under the remand. Therefore, it is not academic,' Jamil said. In any case, the judge ruled that the High Court was empowered to determine the validity of the detention under the provision. Lawyer Collin Arvind Andrew had submitted that Section 117(1) should be given a strict and literal interpretation, as the provision seeks to deprive a person of his or her liberty. 'The term 'police officer making the investigation' in Section 117(1) must refer to the investigating officer and no one else,' said Collin, who was assisted by Shahlini Sree Kumar and Ernie Sulastri. Deputy public prosecutor Khalijah Khalid however argued that any other representative of the police officer could stand in, provided that he or she had knowledge of the case. A substitute officer should be allowed to stand in for an investigating officer who is indisposed, said Khalijah who was assisted by deputy public prosecutor Noor Dayana Mohamad.
