In this criminal appeal concerning conviction under the Abkari Act, the High Court of Kerala held that a Preventive Officer was incompetent to register a crime report. Consequently, the registration of Exhibit-P4 was illegal, rendering all further proceedings void, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
Conviction and sentence set aside; appellants acquitted.
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 B.KEMAL PASHA
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
CRL.A.No. 1007 of 2009 (A)
SC 482/2008 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, PALAKKAD
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:
1. MANIKANDAN, S/O.TEETHI,PUTHANKULAMBIL, THARUR, ALATHUR.
2. SUKU @ RAJESH, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, HARIJAN COLONY, MARIKKAVU, ERIMAYUR,ALATHUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.A.S.SABU
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ALEX M. THOMBRA
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
DSV/17/12/16
B. KEMAL PASHA, J
================= Crl.Appeal No.1007 of 2009
=================
Dated this the 16th day of December, 2016
The appellants are the accused in Sessions Case No.482 of 2008 of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-II), Palakkad, who stand convicted under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Abkari Act and each of whom sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of `1,00,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three more months.
17.5 litres of arrack in two plastic cans having the capacity of 10 litres each at Naranganpara in Alathur Village, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari
Act.
Crl.A.No.1007 of 2009
2
Crl.A.No.1007 of 2009 3
MO1 and MO2 were identified. No defence evidence was adduced. The court below found both the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Abkari Act, convicted them thereunder and sentenced them as aforesaid.
Crl.A.No.1007 of 2009 4
perform the acts and duties mentioned in Sections 40 to 53 of the Abkari Act, within the area for which they were appointed. PW4, being a Preventive Officer, was not authorised or competent to register the crime and occurrence report. Matters being so, the registration of Exhibit-P4 itself is illegal, which has resulted in making all further proceedings in the case illegal. Matters being so, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below are liable to be set aside.
In the result, this Crl.Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the court below are set aside. The appellants are acquitted.
Sd/-
B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.
DSV/17/12/16
// True Copy //
P.A. To Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Preventive Officer of the Excise Department had the competence to register a crime and occurrence report under the Abkari Act.
Whether the illegality in the registration of Exhibit-P4 invalidates the subsequent conviction and sentence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manikandan
Suku @ Rajesh
State of Kerala
B. Kemal Pasha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
