Partly allowed

C.G.Raju @ Pandyan, C.NO.525, Central Prision Kannur v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Feb 2014CRL.A/1323/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court confirmed the appellant's conviction for violating the Abkari Act regarding arrack possession. However, due to the appellant's age of 76, the court reduced the substantive sentence from three to one year and modified the default imprisonment term accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Sentence for substantive imprisonment reduced to one year; fine confirmed; default imprisonment reduced to six months; release ordered if continued detention not required.

C.G.Raju @ Pandyan, C.NO.525, Central Prision Kannur Vs… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/23RD MAGHA, 1935

¶5

CRL.A.No. 1323 of 2012 (A)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 93/2010 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) I, KALPETTA DATED 25-04-2012

¶7

APPELLANT(S):

¶8

C.G.RAJU @ PANDYAN, S/O. GURUSWAMI, C.NO.525, CENTRAL PRISION KANNUR

¶9

BY ADV. ADITHYA SHENOY.A.G. (STATE BRIEF)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-682301.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

JJJ

¶15

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶16

Crl. Appeal No. 1323 of 2012

¶17

Dated this the 12^th day of February, 2014

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

This appeal has been preferred through the

¶20

Superintendent of Central Prison, Kannur. Adv. Aditya Shenoy A.G. was appointed as the State Brief to argue this appeal.

¶21

Heard Adv. Aditya Shenoy A.G., learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶22

The appellant was the accused in Sessions Case No.93/2010 and was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalpetta for offence under section 8(1) r/w 8(2) of Abkari Act. He was sentenced to simple imprisonment for three years and to pay Rs.1 lakh as fine and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one more year.

¶23

The case of the prosecution is that while PWs 1 and 2 were on beat duty on 13.10.2009, they found the

¶24

Crl.A. No. 1323/2012

¶25

-2-

¶26

appellant coming from the forest area carrying a red rexin bag. He was intercepted and M.O.1 rexin bag was examined. It was found to contain a jerry can of 10 litre capacity with full liquid therein. Bonafide believing that it was arrack, the Excise Officer was informed. The Excise Inspector reached the spot along with other officials. The can was examined. He identified the liquid as arrack. It was seized as per Ext.P1 mahazar. 200 ml of arrack was taken in a bottle of 375 ml. It was sealed and label was affixed. Thereafter, the sample bottle and the remaining liquid in the jerry can and the rexin bag were seized. The accused was arrested for which Ext.P2 - arrest memo was prepared. The accused and the contraband articles were taken to the Excise Range Office. When the sample was sent for chemical examination, it was found to contain 29.89% by volume of Ethyle Alcohol and as such it comes within the definition of arrack.

¶27

Crl.A. No. 1323/2012

¶28

-3-

¶29

The evidence given by PW1 -the Forest Officer and

¶30

PW3- the Excise Range Officer was accepted by the trial court. Since the accused was caught red handed with M.O.1 jerry can containing 10 litres of arrack, the court below found the appellant guilty of offence as mentioned above.

¶31

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that PW2 (independent witness) did not support the prosecution. It is further submitted that the forest officials have got grouse against the appellant and only to wreak vengeance, this case has been foisted. It is also submitted that it is not at all possible for the appellant, who is aged 76 years, to carry jerry can of 10 litres and that itself will show the falsity of the prosecution case.

¶32

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is no infirmity in the evidence given by PW1. Ext.P1 the seizure mahazar as per which the contraband articles were seized do support the prosecution case. I have scanned the

¶33

Crl.A. No. 1323/2012

¶34

-4-

¶35

evidence thoroughly. I find that the trial court has rightly found the appellant guilty of the offence. The conviction is thus confirmed.

¶36

Since the appellant is aged 76 years, the sentence awarded by the court below is disproportionate, the learned counsel submits.

¶37

Considering all the aspects, I find that the substantive sentence can to be modified.

¶38

The substantive sentence passed by the court below is reduced to simple imprisonment for one year. Since the fine of Rs.1 lakh is the minimum, the fine imposed by the court below is confirmed but the default sentence is reduced to simple imprisonment for six months. It can be seen that the appellant had already undergone imprisonment for more than two years. Since the substantive sentence has been reduced to one year, the remaining period he underwent after trial shall be adjusted

¶39

Crl.A. No. 1323/2012

¶40

-5-

¶41

towards the period of default sentence awarded by this Court. Since the default sentence has also been reduced to six months, I hold that the appellant has already undergone default sentence as well. As such, the appellant shall be released from jail forthwith if his continued detention is not required in connection with any other crime.

¶42

Sd/N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶43

//True Copy//

¶44

P.A. to Judge

¶45

jjj

C.G.Raju @ Pandyan, C.NO.525, Central Prision Kannur v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.G.Raju @ Pandyan, C.NO.525, Central Prision Kannur 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

Pranab Vs State of Kerala

Urumees Alias Shaju Vs the State of Kerala

Chandrasekharan @ Meghan Vs State of Kerala

Rahul Vs State of Kerala

Karattuchalil Noushad Vs State of Kerala

K.Ushakumari Vs Dr.Ali Ashraf