The Court dismissed a criminal appeal convicting the appellant under Section 64A of the Abkari Act. The Court held that the owner remains liable for illegal storage on their property despite alleged tenancy, citing prejudgment on constitutional grounds.
Conviction and sentence under Section 64A of the Abkari Act confirmed; appeal dismissed.
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
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/27TH MAGHA, 1937
CRL.A.No. 1770 of 2005 ( )
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 389/2003 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), THODUPUZHA
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CP 12/2001 of J.M.F.C.,NEDUMKANDOM
APPELLANT/ACCUSED::
RAJAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, PLATHOTTATHIL VEEDU, PARAKKADAVU KARA KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT::
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, UDUMPANCHOLA REPRESENTED THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
BY PP SRI N SURESH
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-022016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.D.RAJAN, J
..................................... Crl.A.No.1770 of 2005 ................................... Dated 16th February, 2016
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the conviction and sentence in S.C.383 of 2003 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc I, Thodupuzha under Section 64A of the Abkari Act. The charge against the accused is that on 28.4.1999, Excise Inspector, Udumbanchola searched building No.VI/431 of Karunapuram grama panchayat on the basis of information. At that time, he also inspected adjacent building VI/No.430, which was found locked. After preparing a search memorandum, he conducted a search, after opening the lock with the help of a blacksmith and detected 10 cans of spirit (8 cans contain 35 litres(2 cans contains 10 litres). He seized the spirit, thereafter registered a case. After completing investigation, Excise Inspector, Udumbanchola laid charge before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nedumkandam under Section 8(1) and (2), 55(a) and 64A of the Abkari Act. From there the case was
Cra 1770/2005
2
committed to Sessions Court, Thodupuzha, from there it is made over to Additional Sessions Court.
Cra 1770/2005
3
opposed the above argument.
“Section 64A. Penalty for allowing land, building, room etc. for manufacture, sale or storing for sale or intoxicating drug - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or in any other law for the time being in force, any owner or occupier or person having control of, any land, building, room, space or enclosure, permits any person to use such land, building room, space or enclosure for manufacture sale or storing for sale of liquor or intoxicating drug in contravention of this Act or of anh rule or order made thereunder or of any licence or permit obtained under this Act shall be punishable with fine which shall not less than twenty-five thousand rupees unless he proves to the satisfaction of the court that all due and reasonable precautions were taken by him to prevent such use”.
Udumbanchola to prove the search and seizure of the contraband articles. The oral evidence of PW2 shows that
Cra 1770/2005 4
on 28.4.1999, he got information that in building No,KP 6/431, the contraband articles were stored and on the basis of that information he searched that building, Ext.P2 is the search memorandum. Building No.KP 6/430 was found locked and he also conducted a search in that building in which he detected MO1 and MO2. He seized those articles after preparing Ext.P3 seizure mahazar. Ext.P4 is the search list. He took 300 ml of spirit as sample in two bottles and sealed at the place of occurrence itself. The searched building belongs to one Rajan Panakadava who is the appellant in this case and he was not present there at the time of seizure. The lock was broken in the presence of Village Officer and other independent witnesses. Further investigation was conducted by PW7, Excise Inspector, Udumbanchola.
Cra 1770/2005 5
series. He signed in Ext.P3. The blacksmith PW6 deposd that he opened the lock of building No.KP 6/430. Even though these witnesses were cross examined by the defence counsel, nothing has been brought out to discredit their direct oral evidence.
Cra 1770/2005
6
evidence, the contention raised by the appellant with regard to possession is rejected. It is presumed that as per Ext.P1 document, appellant is in possession of that building.
“If a building is used for illegal activities, it will be the primary concern of the owner or the person in control of the building rather than
Cra 1770/2005 7
anybody else. The mere fact that building has been let out does not mean that the owner ceases to have any control over the building. No building can be rented out for an activity, which is illegal and opposed to law. Restrictions, which are not permissible with other trades, are lawful and reasonable with regard to various matters covered by the abovementioned legislations. Therefore, S.64A does not impose any unreasonable restriction or infringe the freedom on the persons like the petitioner. Therefore, S.64A is not violative of Arts.14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India”.
Therefore the conviction under Section 64A of the Abkari Act is confirmed. There is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed. Appellant is directed to surrender in the trial court to undergo the modified sentence within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
P.D.RAJAN, JUDGE
lgk
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the owner of a building used for storing contraband is liable under Section 64A of the Abkari Act even if the building was allegedly let out to another person.
Whether the constitutional validity challenge under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 succeeds against the penalty imposed for storing intoxicating drugs.
Whether the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's possession of the building where contraband was found.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Salam Haji V. State of KeralaExplained¶40
Salam Haji V. State of Kerala (1999(1) KLT 102)
3 provisions across 2 enactments
RAJAN, S/O. KRISHNAN
STATE OF KERALA
P.D.RAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
