Appeal against conviction and sentence for offences under Abkari Act. High Court set aside conviction because prosecution failed to prove sale or excess possession beyond reasonable doubt.
Conviction and sentence set aside. Accused acquitted of charges. Bail bond cancelled and accused set at liberty.
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
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/11TH KARTHIKA, 1937
CRL.A.No.495 of 2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 681/2004 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, THODUPUZHA DATED 06-02-2006
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
ARUL RAJ, S/O.CHINNASWAMY, LOWER DIVISION ESTATE LAYAM, MANJUMALA KARA, MANJUMALA VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.M.TOMY
SRI.MATHEW SKARIA
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY SMT. S. HYMA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P. BHAVADASAN, J.
Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2015.
JUDGMENT
The accused was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 55(a) and (i) of the Abkari Act. He was found guilty. He was therefore convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months.
8.9.2001 was engaged in the investigation of Crime No. 255 of 1999 and while returning to the police station, he got reliable information that in a bunk shop at Manjumala Factory, illicit liquor is being sold. He went to the place, search memo was prepared and sent to court. The bunk shop was searched. There they found a bottle having the capacity of 750 ml. containing 550 ml of liquid. It contained the label 'Ralico
2
Crl.Appeal. 495/2006.
Windies xxx Rum. P.W.4 says that there were 6 glasses which had the smell of liquor. Ext.P1 mahazar was prepared and articles were seized. He returned to the station and handed
over the articles to the officer there.
before court.
Crl.Appeal. 495/2006.
3
exclusively triable by a court of Sessions, the said court committed the case to Sessions Court, Thodupuzha. The said court made over the case to Additional Sessions Court Fast Track (Adhoc)-II, Thodupuzha for trial and disposal.
Crl.Appeal. 495/2006.
4
5
Crl.Appeal. 495/2006.
quantity seized is 550 ml. As per the provision, a person should possess 2 and odd litres and if that be so, no offence is made out.
Crl.Appeal. 495/2006.
6
Section 55(a) cannot be attracted. For the above reason, this court is unable to uphold the finding of the court below that the accused is guilty of the offences alleged against him.
For the above reasons, this appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court are set aside and it is held that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. His bail bond shall stand cancelled and he is set at liberty.
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
sb.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the evidence establishes commission of offence punishable under Section 55(a) and (i) of Abkari Act.
Whether mere presence of glasses and pills seized from accused places leads to conclusion that sale was conducted by him.
Whether quantity of liquor seized from accused places amounts to excess possession attracting Section 15(1)(i) of Abkari Act.
ARUL RAJ
STATE OF KERALA
P. BHAVADASAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
