Allowed

M.Harikrishnan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Sept 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/2059/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the criminal revision petition in an abkari case. The court held that since the three seized liquor bottles were not produced as evidence, it could not be ascertained if they were illegally transported from outside Kerala. This created reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; petitioner released and bail bond cancelled; fine deposited refunded.

M.Harikrishnan Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/12TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2059 of 2005 ( )

¶6

-------------------------------CRA.693/2001 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT FAST TRACK (ADHOC-II), KOZHIKODE CC.1075/1997 of J.M.F.C.-IV,KOZHIKODE

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED :-

¶8

M.HARIKRISHNAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN NAIR, AGED 34 YEARS, MANNAKKOTTE HOUSE, MUNDUPALAM VELLIPARAMBA P.O.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUDHISH

¶10

SMT.M.MANJU

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE :-

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING S.I. OF POLICE, ELATHUR POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ROY THOMAS

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

jvt

¶16

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶17

Crl.R.P. No.2059 of 2005

¶18

Dated this the 3^rd day of September 2012

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Petitioner challenges the concurrent verdict of conviction entered against him for offence punishable under Sec.55(a) of Abkari Act. He was sentenced to undergo S.I. for 6 months and to pay Rs.25,000/- as fine and in default to undergo S.I. for 3 months. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, after re-appreciation, concurred with the finding of guilt entered against the petitioner and confirmed the sentence imposed on him.

¶21

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that both courts failed to appreciate the fact that there is no legal evidence to show that 2.250 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor alleged to have been seized by PW1 was illegally transported by the petitioner/accused. The three liquor bottles were not produced before the court at the time of trial and so, serious prejudice was caused to the accused

¶22

Crl.R.P. No.2059 of 2005

¶23

-: 2 :-

¶24

since the accused could not put questions regarding the absence of writings/indications to show that the sale out of a particular state was prohibited. The prosecution proceeded to contend that the liquor bottles might have been purchased and transported from Mahi (Puthucherry State) and that was why the petitioner was found travelling from Vatakara to Kozhikode. But, Ext.P1 the seizure mahazar does not show that there is any label declaration or anything of that sort to indicate that the liquor bottles were sold from or were intended to be used only in Mahi/Puthucherry State. In Ext.P6 property list also, it is not mentioned that there was any such label/writings. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that in the absence of anything of that sort in the mahazar and property list, it can only be assumed that all the liquor bottles were purchased from Kerala itself. It is true that the petitioner could not produce any bill to show that those liquor bottles were purchased from KSBC shop/outlet. It was not mentioned in Ext.P1 or Ext.P6 that there was no sticker of KSBC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶25

Crl.R.P. No.2059 of 2005

¶26

-: 3 :-

¶27

that as those liquor bottles were not produced before the court at the time of trial, it cannot be said that those liquor bottles had no sticker at all. Only the bag in which those liquor bottles were carried was produced before the court and marked as MO1. This aspect was not considered by the trial court or by the appellate court, the learned counsel submits. The total quantity was only 2.250 litres. In the absence of anything to the contrary, according to the learned counsel, it can only be said that the liquor stated to have been carried by the accused was IMFL purchased from the authorised dealer from Kerala. Simply because the bill could not be produced the prosecution cannot contend that it was illegally transported especially because there was no label or anything of that sort to indicate that it was sold or intended to be used in any state other than the State of Kerala.

¶28

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that since there is evidence to show the seizure of the liquor bottles, the burden is on the accused to prove that the liquor bottles were possessed/carried by him legally, for which the accused

¶29

Crl.R.P. No.2059 of 2005

¶30

-: 4 :-

¶31

should have a consistent case and should have proved that it was purchased from an authorised dealer. That argument is also well merited. But, here the fact remains that the three liquor bottles were not produced before the court at the time of trial so as to ascertain whether those liquor bottles were sold from a KSBC outlet or was a product brought from out of state. As such, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of reasonable doubt.

¶32

In the result, this Crl.R.P. is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner are set aside. The petitioner is set at liberty. The bail bond executed by him will stand cancelled. The fine amount if any, deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded to him.

¶33

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶34

Jvt

M.Harikrishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Harikrishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiju.K. Vs the State of Kerala

Anil, S/O.Stephen Vs State of Kerala

Manikuttan Vs State of Kerala

Padmini Vs Sivasudhan

Ravikumar Vs State of Kerala

Surendran Pillai Vs State of Kerala