The Kerala High Court allowed criminal appeal challenging conviction under Abkari Act. Court found evidence sufficient but reduced sentence from two years to period of pre-trial detention, confirming conviction but remitting fine imprisonment term.
Conviction confirmed; sentence reduced to pre-trial detention period of 15 days; fine of ₹1 lakh retained.
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 P.BHAVADASAN
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937
CRL.A.No. 359 of 2006 ( )
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 490/2004 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK (ADHOC-I), KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT(S)/ACCUSED::
KUNHIKANNAN, S/O. KANARAN, EDACHERY, VIA BADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.P.M.RAFIQ
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT::
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LILLY LESLIE
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ds
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
J U D G M E N T
The accused was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. He was found guilty. He was therefore convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of 1 lakh with₹ a default clause of simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.
Crl.A. No. 359 of 2006
-2-
drawn up and he was arrested. A sample has been taken in a bottle of 180ml capacity. It was sealed and labelled and the label contained the signatures of PW1 and the accused. Then he prepared Ext.P2 seizure mahazar. He returned to the Station along with the accused, contraband articles and the documents and registered crime as per Ext.P3 occurrence report. He prepared Ext.P4 property list. Ext.P5 is the forwarding note and he obtained Ext.P6 Chemical Analysis Report. PW4 took over investigation. He recorded statements of witnesses and after completing investigation, he laid charge before court.
Crl.A. No. 359 of 2006
-3-
Crl.A. No. 359 of 2006
-4-
conclusion that the offence has been made out. Conviction and sentence followed.
Crl.A. No. 359 of 2006
-5-
Crl.A. No. 359 of 2006
-6-
Crl.A. No. 359 of 2006
-7-
several changes might have taken place and it will be too harsh to confirm the sentence which was imposed by the court below. Therefore, it was prayed that some leniency be shown in this regard.
Crl.A. No. 359 of 2006
-8-
In the result, while confirming the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, the sentence imposed is set aside and the sentence of imprisonment stands confined to the period of pre-trial detention already undergone by the accused and the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of ₹1 lakh in default of payment of which he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE
ds
//True copy//
P.A. to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction should be set aside due to the contention that the property list did not indicate the balance quantity of arrack was sealed.
Whether the sentence imposed was too harsh and disproportionate given the passage of time and the appellant's age.
Whether the sentence should be modified to include remission of pre-trial detention.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
KUNHIKANNAN
STATE OF KERALA
P. BHAVADASAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
