Partly allowed

C.Rugmini v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Feb 2016CRL.A/1730/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed the criminal appeal of the first accused against conviction under the Kerala Abkari Act for making arrack. The court held the trial court's finding was not illegal, confirming the conviction and sentence. The appeal against the second accused abated due to her death, but the fine survived.

What did the court decide?

The appeal of the first accused is dismissed, maintaining conviction and sentence. The appeal against the second accused is abated, with the fine surviving.

C.Rugmini Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 11 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/22ND MAGHA, 1937

¶5

CRL.A.No. 1730 of 2004

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 131/2000 of ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC-I), THALASSERY, DATED 06-10-2004.

¶7

APPELLANT/I^ST ACCUSED:

¶8

C.RUGMINI, D/O KUNHANGAN, MATHIL, ALAPADAMBA AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rmm

¶15

P.D. RAJAN, J.

¶16

Crl. Appeal No.1730 of 2004

¶17

Dated this the 11^th day of February, 2016

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

This appeal is preferred by the 1^st accused

¶20

against the judgment of conviction and sentence in S.C. No.131 of 2000 by the Additional Sessions Court (AdhocI), Thalassery under Sec.55(b) of the Kerla Abkari Act. The charge against the appellant was that on 03.09.1997 at about 6.10 a.m., the 1^st accused was found making arrack in House No.III/10 owned by second accused in Alapadamba amsom desom by the Excise Inspector, Payyannur and thereby committed the offence. Accused were arrested and after completing investigation, the Excise Inspector laid charge before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur, from there, it was committed to Additional Sessions Court, Thalassery.

¶21

During trial, prosecution examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Exts.P1 to P10. Material objects MO1 to MO7 were admitted in evidence. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by

¶22

Crl. Appeal No.1730 of 2004 2

¶23

the accused while questioning them. They did not adduce any defence evidence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), convicted the accused under Sec.55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for three months. Being aggrieved by that conviction and sentence, the 1^st accused preferred this appeal.

¶24

When the matter came up for hearing on 04.12.2015, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the 2^nd appellant died. In the circumstances, this court directed the learned Public Prosecutor to file a report. Today, when the matter is taken up again, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the death certificate of the accused, issued by the Kankel Alapadamba Grama Panchayath, which is marked as Ext.C1 is produced. According to Ext.C1, the appellant/2^nd accused died on 18.05.2013. Hence, the appeal against the appellant is abated under Sec.394 of

¶25

Crl. Appeal No.1730 of 2004 3

¶26

the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the legal heirs were not impleaded and challenged, the fine amount against the appellant would survive and I heard the counsel to that extent.

¶27

The offence was detected by PW1 who narrated the story. PW1 deposed that the appellant was in possession of the building and the 2^nd accused is the owner of the said house. On 03.08.1997, PW1 found the 1^st accused making the arrack in the building and he seized those articles after preparing Ext.P1 search list and Ext.P2 seizure mahazar. He also took the samples and the remaining wash was destroyed. Reaching at the excise office, he registered Ext.P4, the crime and occurrence report. He identified MO1 to MO11 before court. The defence contention put forward by the accused was rejected by the trial court. PW2, the independent witness did not support the case but he admitted the signature in Exts.P1 and P2. PW3, Secretary of the Grama Panchayath stated that he issued Ext.P7 ownership certificate. PW4 is the Village Assistant, who identified

¶28

Crl. Appeal No.1730 of 2004 4

¶29

the house mentioned in Ext.P7 ownership certificate. PW5 investigated the case and laid charge before the Court. The trial court analysed the oral and documentary evidence and convicted the accused. There is no illegality in the finding of the trial court. Therefore, the conviction under Sec.55(b) and (g) is confirmed.

¶30

There is no merit in this appeal and it is

¶31

dismissed.

¶32

Sd/- P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE

¶33

NS/12/02/2016

¶34

/ True Copy / P.A. To Judge

C.Rugmini v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Rugmini v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Philip Samuel Vs State of Kerala

Sulochana Vs State of Kerala

T.Surendran Vs P.K.Sivadasan

Leven Vs State of Kerala

Binu Vs State of Kerala

Kuttan Vs State of Kerala