In a criminal revision under the Abkari Act, the Kerala High Court upheld the conviction of the petitioner and her husband for storing illegal liquor but reduced the imprisonment term from six months to one month while confirming the fine and default sentence.
Imprisonment reduced to one month; fine and default sentence confirmed; conviction upheld.
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 S. SIRI JAGAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/11TH ASWINA 1934`
Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 2478 of 2004 ( )
CRA NO.38/2000 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT-I, MAVELIKKARA CC NO.90/1997 of J.M.F.C.-I, CHENGANNUR
REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
KARTHIKA, W/O. GOPINATHAN, UPPAMMOOTTIL THEKKETHIL VEEDU, KUTTEMPEROOR, MANNAR ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI. G. HARIHARAN
COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sp
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
---------------------------------------
Crl. Revision Petition No:2478/2004
Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2012.
O R D E R
The petitioner and her husband, Sri. Gopinathan were prosecuted for an offence under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act in Calender Case No.90/1997 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Chengannur. The prosecution case was that, the accused stored about 90 litres of wash in their house No. M.P.IV/254 of Kottamperoormuri, Mannar Village, which was detected by Excise Preventive Officer and party on 23.11.1996 at about 7.15 p.m., thereby committing the offence as alleged. The Magistrate convicted both the accused and sentenced both to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months each and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) each with a default sentence of 2 months each. The petitioner's husband did not file any Appeal and sufferred the punishment. The petitioner filed Crl. Appeal No.38/2000 before the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mavalikkara, who dismissed the same confirming the conviction as well as the punishment. The judgments of the Courts below are under challenge in this Crl.
Crl. Revision Petition No:2478/2004
2
Revision Petition.
3
Crl. Revision Petition No:2478/2004
could be brought out in their evidence in cross-examination. The
4
Crl. Revision Petition No:2478/2004
very fact that the petitioner and her husband were residing in the same house, from the kitchen of which the contraband was seized, itself shows that both the petitioner and her husband were jointly involved in the offence. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the conviction entered by the Courts below in so far as there is no perversity of appreciation of evidence by the Courts below. But taking into the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to reduce the punishment of imprisonment. Accordingly, I reduce the punishment of imprisonment to one month's simple imprisonment, but the punishment of fine is confirmed and the default sentence is also confirmed. The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as above.
S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE
sp
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction of the petitioner should be sustained given allegations of delay in producing evidence and separate residence.
Whether the petitioner is liable for punishment despite claims of non-involvement in the storage of contraband.
Whether the impugned sentence of six months' imprisonment requires reduction.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Karthiska W/O. Gopinathan
State of Kerala
S. Siri Jagan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
