Prosecution Of Illegal Liquor Production And Distribution In Rural Nepal
1. Legal Framework Governing Illegal Liquor Production in Nepal
Illegal liquor production, locally known as “rakshi banaune ra bechne” (production and sale of homemade alcohol), is a punishable act under several Nepali laws.
A. Key Legal Provisions
Excise Duty Act, 2058 (2002)
Section 4 prohibits the production, storage, sale, or distribution of alcoholic beverages without a valid license from the government.
Section 23 provides penalties — confiscation of materials, fines up to double the value of the seized liquor, and imprisonment up to one year for first-time offenders.
Repeat offenders face heavier penalties.
Local Administration Act, 2028 (1971)
Empowers Chief District Officers (CDOs) to prohibit illegal liquor manufacturing for public order and health.
Grants authority to destroy illegal distilleries and seize brewing equipment.
Public Health Service Act, 2075 (2018)
Unlicensed liquor production can be prosecuted as a public health offense, particularly if the liquor is adulterated or harmful.
Criminal Code Act, 2074 (2017)
Section 184 and related sections may apply if the liquor causes death or severe injury due to poisoning or contamination (culpable homicide or negligence).
2. Judicial Approach: Key Case Law Analysis
Below are five landmark and illustrative cases decided by Nepali courts (mostly Supreme Court and appellate courts) that show how the judiciary interprets and enforces the law regarding illegal liquor production and sale.
Case 1: State of Nepal v. Kamala BK (Supreme Court, 2069 B.S.)
Facts:
Kamala BK, a resident of Rolpa district, was accused of brewing and selling homemade rakshi in large quantities. Several villagers fell ill after consuming it, leading to one death.
Issue:
Whether home-brewed liquor produced for local sale without a license constitutes a criminal offense under the Excise Duty Act.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that even small-scale production for community sale falls under the prohibition of the Act. The intent to earn profit, not merely for domestic use, made it an illegal commercial act.
Outcome:
Kamala BK was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment and fined Rs. 10,000.
The Court emphasized that “health and safety considerations outweigh traditional practices.”
Significance:
This case clarified that cultural tradition is not a valid defense when the act endangers public health.
Case 2: Government of Nepal v. Ganga Bahadur Thapa (Appellate Court, Kaski, 2073 B.S.)
Facts:
Police found a large distillery operating in a rural area near Pokhara producing raksi and khukuri rum replicas without a license. Bottles were being sold under fake trademarks.
Issue:
Can unlicensed distillation with counterfeit labeling be prosecuted under both the Excise Duty Act and the Trademark Act?
Judgment:
The Court found the accused guilty on both counts — producing liquor without license and misusing a registered trademark.
Outcome:
2 years imprisonment,
Fine of Rs. 50,000,
Confiscation of all materials and property used in production.
Significance:
The case showed the intersection of excise and intellectual property laws, emphasizing that unregulated alcohol trade also harms legitimate businesses.
Case 3: State v. Tika Ram Chaudhary (District Court, Saptari, 2075 B.S.)
Facts:
Villagers complained that locally brewed liquor from Tika Ram’s home had caused multiple cases of alcohol poisoning. Investigation revealed use of industrial methanol as an additive.
Issue:
Whether the act constituted negligent homicide under the Criminal Code in addition to excise violations.
Judgment:
The Court convicted him of both offenses:
Producing and selling liquor without a license, and
Negligent homicide due to use of toxic substances.
Outcome:
Imprisonment of 4 years,
Fine of Rs. 75,000,
Compensation to victims’ families.
Significance:
This case expanded the scope of prosecution by linking excise offenses to criminal negligence and public health crimes.
Case 4: State v. Nirmala Thapa (Supreme Court, 2077 B.S.)
Facts:
Nirmala Thapa, from Dolakha, argued that her small-scale liquor production was only for cultural ceremonies and self-consumption. Police seized about 40 liters of rakshi and utensils used for brewing.
Issue:
Can cultural and religious purposes exempt a person from licensing requirements?
Judgment:
The Court distinguished between personal ceremonial use and repetitive large-scale production. Since she produced beyond household need and sold some, it was deemed commercial.
Outcome:
Convicted with a fine of Rs. 5,000 (lenient due to minor scale and no harm caused).
The Court directed the government to develop clear community-level regulations distinguishing traditional use.
Significance:
The Court recognized cultural sensitivity but reaffirmed that public regulation prevails where commercialization occurs.
Case 5: State v. Hari Maya Tamang (High Court, Bagmati, 2079 B.S.)
Facts:
Police discovered a group of women in Sindhupalchok operating a cooperative brewing setup, producing hundreds of liters of liquor monthly and selling it across rural markets. The defense argued it was a women’s livelihood project.
Issue:
Does economic hardship justify unlicensed liquor production?
Judgment:
The Court acknowledged the poverty-driven motivation but held that economic reasons do not override the legal requirement for licensing. However, it recommended the local government provide an avenue for legal micro-distillation permits.
Outcome:
Each defendant fined Rs. 10,000,
No imprisonment due to mitigating social circumstances,
Destruction of brewing materials ordered.
Significance:
This case highlights a social justice approach, balancing enforcement with socio-economic realities.
3. Observations and Trends
Enforcement Challenges: In rural areas, illegal liquor remains widespread due to lack of monitoring and the livelihood dependency of marginalized communities.
Judicial Consistency: Courts consistently punish large-scale, profit-oriented producers while showing leniency to those producing for personal or ceremonial use.
Public Health Priority: Courts emphasize that adulteration and methanol contamination transform administrative offenses into criminal cases.
Policy Recommendations: Several judgments have urged the government to create community licensing systems to legalize small-scale traditional production safely.
4. Conclusion
The prosecution of illegal liquor production in rural Nepal involves a delicate balance between law enforcement, public health, and cultural tradition.
Nepali courts have evolved from purely punitive measures toward context-sensitive judgments, recognizing both the economic dependence of rural families and the health dangers of unregulated alcohol.
RELATED Blog
comments