Partly allowed

Sreenivasan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Jan 2016CRL.A/1863/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appellant's challenge to conviction but modified the sentence under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act from one year to three months, allowing set-off for detention undergone. The court ruled detailed factual discussion was unnecessary as the appeal sought only leniency.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence reduced from one year to three months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. One lakh; detention period allowed as set-off.

Sreenivasan Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/18TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

CRL.A.No. 1863 of 2005 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 703/2002 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT FAST TRACK-II, ALAPPUZHA DATED 31-08-2005

¶7

APPELLANT/ACCUSED.:

¶8

SREENIVASAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, CHAKKALATHU VEEDU, ERUMATHUR MURI THRIPPERUMTHURA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA ALAPPUZHA.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.JOHN BRITTO

¶10

SRI.C.A.RAJEEV

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT.:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE EXCISE INSPECTOR OF MAVELIKKARA, RANGE THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF, KERALA ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY PP SRI N SURESH

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-012016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

P.D.RAJAN, J

¶16

......................................... Crl.A.No.1863 of 2005 ....................................... Dated 8^th January, 2016

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The appellant is the accused in S.C.703 of 2002 before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track II, Alappuzha challenges the conviction and sentence under Section 55(g) of Abkari Act. The charge against the appellant is that on 8.9.1997, at 11.30 pm, the accused was found in possession of 147 litres of wash in three kannas kept for manufacturing arrack near the house of one Joseph John, Mukolil house. On the basis of information, the Preventive Officer headed by the Excise Inspector arrived at the place of occurrence, seized the article and registered a crime. After completing investigation, they laid charge before Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Chengannur. From there it was committed to Sessions Court for trial and subsequently it was made over to the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track II) Alappuzha.

¶19

During trial prosecution examined PW1 to 5 and

¶20

Cra 1863/2005 2

¶21

marked Ext.P1 to P3. Material objects were admitted as MO1 to 3. The 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 (Fast Track II), Alappuzha convicted him and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.One lakh with a default sentence of three months. Being aggrieved by that he approached this court with this appeal.

¶22

Heard both sides. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that he is not disputing the procedural formalities complied by the detecting officer. Appellant was aged 38 years at the time of institution of the case and he is the sole bread winner of his family and he seeks for leniency in sentence. Learned Public Prosecutor has no objection with regard to the above submission.

¶23

The case was charge sheeted by the Excise Inspector, Mavelikkara range. The Excise Range Officer, Mavelikkara was conducting patrol duty along Mannar-

¶24

Cra 1863/2005

¶25

¶26

Perumpuzha road. The accused was found in possession of 147 litres of wash for the purpose of manufacturing arrack on the side of house of one Joseph John. PW1 to PW4 are the prosecution witnesses. PW4 deposed about the occurrence. When he reached at the place of occurrence, he found 30 litres in a kannas, another 30 litres of wash (in 8 kannas each having a capacity of 10 litres). Altogether he detected 147 litres of wash. He took 500 ml each as sample and destroyed the wash at the place of occurrence itself. The kannas were marked as MO1, MO2 series and MO3, for that he prepared Ext.P1 mahazar. PW1, the Preventive Officer supported the prosecution case. PW2 and 3 were declared hostile but PW3 admitted his signature in Ext.P1. Ext.P4 chemical examination result shows that the sample taken contained 11.75 volume of methyl alcohol. No reasons are stated by the defence counsel to disbelieve PW1 and PW4 and the seizure of wash was proved. Trial court relied the decision of this court in Thampi V. State of Kerala (2002(3) KLT SN 25). Since the learned counsel

¶27

Cra 1863/2005 4

¶28

for the appellant seeks leniency in sentence only, no discussion about the factual matters is warranted. Therefore the conviction under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act is confirmed and the sentence is modified as follows. Appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for three months under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act. He is also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.One lakh and in default of payment of fine, imprisonment for one month. Relied Sasikumar V. State of Kerala (2012(4) KLT 867). The period of detention undergone by the accused shall be entitled to set off as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Appellant is directed to surrender before trial court to undergo the modified sentence failing which the Additional Sessions Judge shall issue non bailable warrant forthwith.

¶29

P.D.RAJAN, JUDGE

¶30

lgk

Sreenivasan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreenivasan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sreeram Hire Purchase Vs Anilkumar

Ajayakumar @ Ani Vs State of Kerala

Daniel Vs State of Kerala

Ponnappan Vs State of Kerala

Vasudeva Kurup Vs State of KERALA24

Sujatha Vs State of Kerala