Allowed

Arimbra Muraleedharan v. the Excise Inspector

Kerala HC26 Feb 2016CRL.A/2050/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed an appeal against conviction under Sec.55 of the Kerala Abkari Act. Relying on precedent, the court held simple possession attracts Sec.8 and acquitted the appellant of the heavier charge but convicted him under Sec.8 with a reduced sentence.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Sec.55(a) set aside; appellant convicted under Sec.8; sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,00,000/-.

Arimbra Muraleedharan Vs the Excise Inspector — 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

FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/7TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

CRL.A.NO. 2050 OF 2004 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC NO.92/2002 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT NO.1 (ADHOC), MANJERI DATED 10-11-2004

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/ACCUSED :

¶8

ARIMBRA MURALEEDHARAN

¶9

S/O. CHANDU, R/O.THIRUVALLY AND DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI. K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, HIGH COURT ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN 682 031.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. N. SURESH

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

P.D. RAJAN, J.

¶18

Crl. Appeal No.2050 of 2004 ---------------------------------Dated this the 26^th day of February, 2016

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

This appeal is preferred by the accused against

¶21

the conviction and sentence in S.C. No.92 of 2002 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track-I(Adhoc), Manjeri. The charge against the appellant is that on 18.08.1999 at 8.30 p.m., he was found in possession of 2½ litres of illicit arrack by the Anti Narcotic Special Squad, Malappuram. He was arrested and the contraband articles were seized after describing it in a mahazar. Reaching at the Excise Range office, Manjeri they registered a crime. After completing investigation, the Excise Inspector, Excise Range, Manjeri laid charge against the accused in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Manjeri. From there, the case was committed to Sessions Court, Manjeri and subsequently, it is made over to Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track-I).

¶22

During trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to

¶23

PW6 and marked Exts.P1 to P10 as documentary evidence. MO1 was admitted as material object. The

¶24

Crl. Appeal No.2050 of 2004 2

¶25

incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning him. He did not adduce any defence evidence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Sec.55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for six months. Being aggrieved by that, he preferred this appeal.

¶26

Heard both sides.

¶27

The occurrence was deposed by PW1. His

¶28

evidence shows that, on 18.08.1999 at about 8.30 a.m., while he was conducting patrol and reached at Thiruvally, Sharathukunnu, appellant was found carrying MO1 and proceeding through the road. On seeing the excise party, the accused became perplexed. Upon suspicion, PW1 intercepted him and inspected MO1 in which he identified 2½ litres of arrack in it. He seized the arrack after preparing Ext.P3 mahazar. Ext.P1 is the arrest memo and Ext.P2 is the arrest notice. He took 200 m.l. as sample from MO1, sealed and labelled it at the place of

¶29

Crl. Appeal No.2050 of 2004 3

¶30

occurrence itself. The balance of arrack in MO1 was also sealed at the place of occurrence and he affixed a label on it. They reached at the Excise Range Office, Manjeri and entrusted the contraband articles and the accused in that office and the Excise Inspector, Manjeri registered Ext.P4 crime and occurrence report. This evidence was supported by PW2, who is the preventive officer attached to Anti Narcotic Squad, Malappuram. Analysing the evidence of PW1 and PW2, it is clear that MO1 was seized from the possession of the appellant as alleged. The independent witness PW3 admitted his signature in Ext.P3 seizure mahazar. But, he did not support the prosecution case. PW4, another witness admitted his signature in Ext.P3. Even though the independent witnesses PW3 and PW4 did not support the prosecution case, that itself is not a reason to discard the direct oral testimony of PW1 and PW2 in this case.

¶31

In this context, I have examined the evidence of the investigating officer. PW5 admitted that he received the article and on the basis of that, he prepared

¶32

Crl. Appeal No.2050 of 2004 4

¶33

Ext.P7 crime and occurrence report. Ext.P8 is the property list. The sample was produced before the court as per Ext.P9 forwarding note and it was examined in the chemical examination lab. Ext.P10 is the report received from the chemical examination lab in which, percentage of ethyl alcohol was reported. There is no dispute with regard to the content in Ext.P10. The evidence of PW1, PW2, and PW5 is believable. PW6 completed investigation and laid charge before the court. The reason that PW1, PW2, PW5 and PW6 are the excise officials is not a reason to discard the evidence of the official witness. No circumstances are brought out in evidence in cross examination to discredit their evidence. In the light of the oral and documentary evidence, I am of the opinion that the trial court rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted the appellant. Mere possession of arrack in any form without any authority would only attract an offence under Sec.8 of the Kerala Abkari Act and not under Sec.55 of the Kerala Abkari Act.

¶34

This court in Gopan v. State of Kerala

¶35

Crl. Appeal No.2050 of 2004 5

¶36

[ 2007 (3) KLT 443] held that possession of arrack in any form without any authority would only attract the offence under Sec.8 of the Abkari Act.

¶37

In the result, conviction under Sec.55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act is set aside and the appellant is convicted under Sec.8 of the Kerala Abkari Act and sentenced to imprisonment for three months and pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, imprisonment for one month relied on the decision reported in Sasikumar v. State of Kerala [2012 (4) KLT 867 SC] . The appellant is directed to surrender in the trial court to undergo the modified sentence, failing which, the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall issue non bailable warrant against the appellant. The period of detention undergone by the accused during investigation and trial shall be entitled to set off.

¶38

This appeal is disposed of as above.

¶39

Sd/- P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE / True Copy /

¶40

P.A. To Judge

¶41

NS/27/02/2016

Arimbra Muraleedharan v. the Excise Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arimbra Muraleedharan v. the Excise Inspector

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

Shaji Vs State of Kerala,Rep.by P.P.,H.C.,Ekm.

Damodharan Vs Rajappan

Suseela Vs State of Kerala

Raveendran Vs Shahul Hameed

Philip Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Vs State of Kerala