The High Court of Kerala heard an appeal against conviction and sentence for illegal possession of foreign liquor. The court modified the sentence to a fine of 5,000/- with imprisonment in default, relying on a precedent regarding age and quantity of contraband.
Sentence modified to a fine of Rs. 5,000/-; simple imprisonment for three months in default.
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
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/18TH POUSHA, 1937
CRL.A.No. 1805 of 2004 (A)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 1161/2002 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK (ADHOC) NO.II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 20-10-2004
APPELLANT(S)/ACCUSED:
SUJATHA, D/O. SEETHA, KIZHAKKEKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, NAVOTTUKONAM MELULIYAZHATHARA DESOM, ULIYAZHATHARA VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. N. SURESH
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
acd
P.D. RAJAN, J.
Crl.Appeal No.1805 of 2004
Dated this the 8th day of January, 2016
JUDGMENT
The appellant, who was convicted in S.C.No.1161/2002
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc) No.II, Thiruvananthapuram for having committed an offence punishable u/s.55(a) of the Abkari Act, challenges the conviction and sentence through this appeal. The charge against the appellant was that on 8.6.2001 at 10.30 a.m. while preventive officer was conducting patrol duty, the appellant
was standing near the foot steps of Bhima Jewellery with a
big shopper, on seeing the Excise Party, she was perplexed and entered into the jewellery. The Preventive Officer intercepted her and on examination, he detected 12 full
bottles of XXX Rum having the seal of KSBC. She was
Crl.Appeal No.1805/2004 2
arrested and the contraband articles were seized.
Thereafter, they registered a case and after completing investigation, the Excise Inspector laid charge before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram from there it was committed to Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram.
and marked Exts.P1 to P5. The material objects were marked as MO1 and MO2. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning her. She did not adduce any defence evidence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant u/s.63 of the Abkari Act and sentenced to pay a fine of 5,000/- and simple imprisonment for six months,₹
in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for
Crl.Appeal No.1805/2004 3
three months. Being aggrieved by that, she preferred this
appeal.
contended that the sentence imposed by the trial Court is too harsh. Hence, she prays to modify the sentence. The learned Public Prosecutor has no objection in the above submission.
the Excise Inspector registered a case on the basis of
Crl.Appeal No.1805/2004 4
Ext.P1 seizure mahazar. Ext.P2 is the occurrence report.
The material objects were marked as MO1 and MO2. The seized articles were produced before Court. Ext.P3 is the property list. PW2 is an independent witness, who attested Ext.P1 seizure mahazar. PW3, another Preventive Officer, present there supported the case. PW6 conducted investigation and laid charge. The seized articles were produced before Court and sent to chemical examiners' lab through Court. Ext.P4 is the chemical examination report. As per Ext.P4, 41.44 percentage of ethyl alcohol was detected in the sample. The appellant has no dispute with regard to the content in Ext.P4. Therefore, the trial Court was of the opinion that the seized article was foreign liquor as alleged and convicted the appellant u/s.63 of the Abkari Act. I do not find any
Crl.Appeal No.1805/2004 5
illegality in the above finding to that aspect.
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that according to Section 63 of the Abkari Act, when a person
is found guilty of any act or intentional omission in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule or order made under this Act, the Magistrate can punish for such wilful omission or act with fine which may extend to 5000/- or with imprisonment for a term which₹ may extend to two years or with both. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant is now aged 61. This
Court in Sabu and others v. State of Kerala [ILR 2003 (3) Kerala 130] held that possession of foreign liquor in excess of prescribed quantity amounts to violation of foreign liquor rules and attracts punishment u/s.63 alone. Therefore, the sentence is modified and the appellant is sentenced to
Crl.Appeal No.1805/2004
6
pay a fine of 5,000/- , in default of payment of fine,₹
simple imprisonment for three months. She is directed to
surrender in the trial Court to undergo the modified
sentence, failing which the learned Magistrate shall issue non bailable warrant against the appellant.
Crl.Appeal is disposed of .
Sd/- P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.
acd
True copy
PA to Judge.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 63 of the Abkari Act exceeds the statutory limits given the appellant's age and the nature of the offence?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sabu and others v. State of KeralaApplied¶43
Sabu and others v. State of Kerala [ILR 2003 (3) Kerala 130] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
SUJATHA
STATE OF KERALA
P.D. RAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
