Appeal against conviction for possession of arrack. Court upheld evidence of possession via ownership and structural features, re-sentenced due to no criminal antecedents.
Conviction upheld; sentence modified to three months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.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.D.RAJAN
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/6TH PHALGUNA, 1937
CRL.A.No. 1004 of 2004 (B)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 57/2003 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, THODUPUZHA DATED 01-06-2004
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SHAJI
HOUSE, MUNDANMURIKARA, VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.A.P.SUBHASH
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY P.P.,H.C.,EKM. PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R1 BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI N SURESH
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-022016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.D.RAJAN, J
......................................... Crl.A. 1004 of 2004 ....................................... Dated 25th February, 2016
This appeal is preferred against the conviction and sentence in S.C.57 of 2003 of Additional Sessions Judge Adhoc II, Thodupuzha. The charge against the appellant is that on 18.9.2001 at 4.35 pm, he was found in possession of 1 litre of arrack in his residential house building No.5/737 of Vannapuram panchayat by S.I of Police, Kaliyar. He was arrested and the contraband articles were seized after preparing a mahazar. Reaching at the police station, he registered a crime, after completing investigation, C.I of Police, Kaliyar laid charge before Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Thodupuzha. From there the case was committed to Sessions Court, Thodupuzha. Subsequently, it was made over to Additional Sessions Court.
Cra 1004/2004
2
incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning him. He did not adduce any defence evidence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1 lakh under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. Being aggrieved by that, he preferred this appeal.
Cra 1004/2004
3
also.
Cra 1004/2004 4
mahazar. Ext.P9 is the arrest memo, reaching at the police station, he registered a crime. Ext.P10(a) is the F.I.R and Ext.P10 is the F.I Statement. The seized article were produced before court. Ext.P11 is the property list.
Ext.P12 is the forwarding note and Ext.P13 is the chemical analysis report. A perusal of Ext.P13 shows that ethyl alcohol was detected in the seized article. Even though PW6 was cross examined by the defence counsel, nothing has been brought out to discredit his evidence. But he admitted that a public road is passing by the side of the property where the appellant resides.
Cra 1004/2004
5
though the appellant raised a contention that the charthu is not numbered and he has no control over it, in the light of the evidence in Ext.P7, that contention is unsustainable. The official witness deposed that charthu is closed with proper closures and outsiders cannot easily enter inside the charthu without the knowledge of appellant. If that be the position, the defence contention put forward by the appellant is only to be discarded. Considering the facts highlighted by the appellant, it is found that trial court rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted the accused under Section 55(a) of the Abkari
Act. I find no illegality in the above conviction.
Cra 1004/2004 6
months and fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment of fine, imprisonment for one month. The period of detention undergone by the accused during trial and investigation shall be entitled to set off against the terms of imprisonment. Appellant is directed to surrender in the Additional Sessions Court to undergo the modified sentence, failing which learned Additional Sessions Judge shall issue non bailable warrant against the appellant. Appeal is allowed in part.
P.D.RAJAN, JUDGE
lgk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution proved conscious/physical possession of premises by the appellant for seizure of arrack.
Whether the conviction under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act is sustainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ravi V. State of KeralaReferred¶22
Ravi V State of Kerala (2011(3) KLT 353)
Mathai V. State of KeralaReferred¶22
Mathai V. State of Kerala (2015(3) KLT SN 59 case No.80)
Sasikumar V. State of KeralaRelied on¶36
Sasikumar V. State of Kerala (2012(4) KLT 867)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shaji
State of Kerala
P.D.Rajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
