Partly allowed

K.Radha v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Sept 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/431/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge upheld the appellate conviction of two women for possessing illicit arrack. While confirming the conviction and the default sentence, the substantive imprisonment was commuted to one day, requiring surrender before the judging court.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court; fine confirmed; surrender required before J.F.C.M.-I, Hosdurg on 9.11.2012.

K.Radha Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/28TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 431 of 2003 (K)

¶6

------------------------------CRA.46/1999 of ADDL.SESSN.COURT (ADHOC-II)KASARAGODE CC.1229/1996 of J.M.F.C.-I,HOSDRUG

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

K.RADHA W/O. KUMARAN, AGED 48 YEARS, BELUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGODE.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS

¶10

SMT.A.RUFIA RUB

¶11

COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, HOSDURG RANGE.

¶13

R, BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. ROY THOMAS

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

das

¶16

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶17

Crl.R.P. No.431 of 2003

¶18

Dated this the 19^th day of September 2012

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This revision is directed against the concurrent verdict of conviction entered and the sentence passed by the courts below for offence punishable under Sec.55(a) of Abkari Act.

¶21

It was alleged that the petitioner was found carrying 2½ litres of illicit arrack at 3 PM on 23.10.1996. The contraband article was seized. Sample was taken. All other procedural formalities were complied with, the prosecution contended.

¶22

Before the trial court, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exts.P1 to P3 were marked. MO1 can was also identified and marked. The trial court found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.55(a) of Abkari Act and she was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 months and to pay Rs.25,000/- as fine and in default to

¶23

Crl.R.P. No.431 of 2003

¶24

-: 2 :-

¶25

undergo S.I. for 6 months. She preferred appeal. After elaborate discussion, the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence and the appeal was dismissed.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the finding of the courts below. I have gone through the judgments of the trial court and also of the appellate court. The evidence would clearly show that the petitioner was in possession of 2½ litres of illicit arrack. The conviction was had on legal evidence adduced by the prosecution. The verdict of conviction thus requires no interference.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as

¶28

the law then stood in force, for the offence punishable under Sec.55(a) of the Abkari Act, the accused was liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for a period which may extent to 2 years and a fine not less than Rs.25,000/- but no minimum jail sentence was prescribed and so, considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 1996, the substantive sentence may be avoided. Petitioner is a

¶29

Crl.R.P. No.431 of 2003

¶30

-: 3 :-

¶31

woman. It is stated that there was no other case against her.

¶32

Considering all the aspects, this revision petition is disposed of as stated below :-

¶33

The conviction is confirmed. While confirming the sentence of fine imposed and the default sentence awarded by the courts below, the substantive sentence is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court. The petitioner will surrender before J.F.C.M.-I, Hosdurg on 9.11.2012 to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay the fine amount. If any part of the fine amount has already been paid by the petitioner, that shall be given deduction to.

¶34

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶35

Jvt

K.Radha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Radha 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

Focus Advertising Company Vs State of Kerala

P.P. Abdurahiman Vs Stae of Kerala

B.Kusuma Kumari Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Rasheed

Kuruvila Vs Sathi Rajan

C.v.Simon Vs Rev.Fr.Kuriakose