Court dismissed appeal against conviction for abkari offenses. Found prosecution evidence consistent and sufficient. Reduced sentence from two years rigorous to one month simple imprisonment due to small quantity and lack of habitual offense evidence.
Conviction confirmed, sentence reduced to one month simple imprisonment and fine of 1 lakh.
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 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/29TH KARTHIKA, 1937
CRL.A.No. 496 of 2006 ( )
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 181/2004 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT FAST TRACK -I (ADHOC), MANJERI DATED 17-02-2006
APPELLANT(S)/ACCUSED.:
CHARU, S/O.KORUKUTTY, CHETTIKUNNIL HOUSE, OORNGATTIRI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE.:
THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, MANJERI EXCISE RANGE THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 31.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LILLY LESLIE
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ds
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
J U D G M E N T
The accused in this case was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 55(a) and 8(1) 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. Set off as per law was allowed.
Crl.A. No. 496 of 2006
-2-
and it contained 1½ litres of liquid. By smell and taste, it was identified as arrack. Ext.P1 arrest memo was prepared and the accused was arrested. From the contraband seized, 200ml of sample was taken in a bottle having a capacity of 375ml. Sample was sealed and labelled and the label contained the signatures of the witnesses and PW1. Ext.P2 mahazar was prepared at the spot. Notice of arrest was given to the relative of the accused. Thereafter, PWs 1 and 2, along with the accused, the contraband article and the documents returned to the Station. PW5 was the Excise Inspector of Nilambur Excise Range at the relevant time. At about 6.00 p.m., when PW1 produced the accused, seized articles and the records before him, he received the same and on the basis of those documents, he registered crime as per Ext.P5 occurrence report. He also prepared the list of property which is Ext.P6 and the forwarding note which is Ext.P7. Further investigation was conducted by PW6, who recorded statements witnesses, obtained Chemical Analysis
Crl.A. No. 496 of 2006
-3-
Report and laid final charge before court.
Crl.A. No. 496 of 2006
-4-
denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against him and maintained that he is innocent.
Crl.A. No. 496 of 2006
-5-
Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Malappuram. The contention taken is that the incident happened at Manjeri and an officer at Malappuram has no jurisdiction to conduct investigation and lay final report. Such a report even if filed is non-est in law and no proceedings can be initiated on that basis. For the above proposition the learned counsel relied on the decision reported in Haridas v.
State of Kerala (2015 (1) KLT 958).
Crl.A. No. 496 of 2006
-6-
incompetent is without any basis. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that it could not be treated as pure version of law as claimed by the appellant as it involves mixed questions of law and facts. If that be so, the accused should have brought out in the cross examination of PW6 that he was incompetent to investigate in the case on hand. Having not done that, it comes with little grace now to take that contention. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the lower court was considerably impressed with the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and also felt that the other documents produced in the case are sufficient to warrant a conclusion that the offence has been made out. There are no grounds made out to interfere the said finding.
Crl.A. No. 496 of 2006
-7-
as an Investigating Officer and lay final report. these aspects should have been put to him when he was in the box. Not even a suggestion was made to the witness that he is incompetent to investigate or to file a final report. The position here is not similar to a case where the particular officer is confined to a particular region. This is a special squad constituted for the purpose of detecting and preventing the commission of crime. It is necessary for the appellant to show that the jurisdiction of such a squad does not extend beyond a particular region and that the restriction has been infringed in the case on hand. Without attempting to make out such a case, the case now put forward that PW6 was incompetent to investigate cannot be countenanced. That contention has to necessarily fail.
Crl.A. No. 496 of 2006
-8-
they had oblique motive or any reason to falsely implicate the accused. They say about the sampling also.
Crl.A. No. 496 of 2006
-9-
reject the prosecution evidence available on record. Thus, viewed from any angle, it could not be said that the finding of the court below that on the basis of the evidence on record, the accused has committed the offence alleged against him, seems to be fully justified. The conviction has only to stand.
Crl.A. No. 496 of 2006
-10-
Considering all these factors, it is felt that the sentence needs to be reduced. While confirming the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 55(a) and 8(1) of the Abkari Act, the sentence imposed by the court below is set aside and instead, he is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of 1 lakh, with a default clause of two months₹ simple imprisonment. Set off as per law will be allowed.
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE
ds
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the investigating officer was incompetent to file the final report and initiate proceedings.
Whether the conviction and sentence should be disturbed on appeal.
Whether sentence is disproportionate given the quantity of contraband and accused's age.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Haridas v. State of KeralaReferred¶39
Haridas v. State of Kerala (2015 (1) KLT 958)
4 provisions across 2 enactments
CHARU
THE STATE OF KERALA
P. BHAVADASAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
