Criminal appeal filed to modify the conviction and sentence for possession of illicit arrack. High Court affirmed the conviction but reduced the imprisonment term while retaining the fine.
Conviction confirmed; imprisonment reduced to one simple; fine of Rs. 1,00,000 retained; default period reduced to two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/12TH BHADRA 1934
CRL.A.No. 670 of 2005 ( )
------------------------SC.488/2002 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT FAST TRACK (ADHOC-II), KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT(S)/ACCUSED.:
RAVIKUMAR, S/O.MADHAVAN, MUDAMUNDIYIL HOUSE, THAZHEKKODE AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT.:
STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, KUNNAMANGALAM EXCISE RANGE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., .
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
jvt
CRL.A.NO.370/2005
APPENDIX
Appellant's Exhibits :-
Annexure-A1 :- Copy of the summary sheet issued from the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode.
Respondent's Exhibits :- NIL.
//True Copy//
P.A. to Judge
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.
Crl.A. No.670 of 2005
Dated this the 3rd day of September 2012
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the Addl. Sessions
Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc II), Kozhikode for offence punishable under Sec.55(a) of Abkari Act. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay `1,00,000/- as fine and in default to undergo S.I. for six months.
who was accompanied by PW1 spoke in terms of the prosecution case. The plastic can was examined by PW1
Crl.A. No.670 of 2005
-: 2 :-
and it was found to contain 2 litres of illicit arrack. Out of it, 180ml was taken in a sample bottle. It was properly sealed and labelled. The remaining liquor contained in MO1 plastic can was also properly sealed and labelled. Ext.P2, the contemporaneous record (mahazar) speaks regarding the arrest of the accused and seizure of the contraband articles.
report prepared by the Excise Inspector. Ext.P4 is the remand report. Ext.P5 is the property list as per which MO1 and sample bottle were sent to the court on the same
Crl.A. No.670 of 2005
-: 3 :-
day. The properties were received in the court on the same day ie; on 11.10.2000. Exts.P1 and P2 also reached the court on the same day. It would vouch for the truthfulness of the allegations contained in Ext.P2 mahazar in respect of which the evidence was given by PW1 and PW2. Ext.P6 is the forwarding note as per which the sample was sent. Ext.P7, the report of the Chemical Examiner shows that the seal on the bottle was in tact and found tallied with the sample seal provided. It was certified that the sample contained 28.70% by volume of ethyl alcohol. As such, it could be proved that MO1 which was carried by the appellant contained illicit arrack. Since he was found carrying the illicit arrack and as he could not account for the possession of the same, the court below has rightly found the appellant is guilty. His conviction is thus confirmed.
Crl.A. No.670 of 2005
-: 4 :-
appellant is the sole bread winner of the family.
In the result, this appeal is disposed of as stated below :-
The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Sec.55(a) is confirmed. In supersession of the sentence awarded by the court below, the appellant is sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as fine and in default to undergo S.I. for two months. The period of detention already undergone by the appellant shall be given set off under Sec.428 Cr.P.C.
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
Jvt
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act for possession of illicit arrack should be upheld.
Whether the sentence awarded by the lower court requires modification.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ravikumar
State of Kerala
N.K. Balakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
