Partly allowed

Soman v. the Excise Inspector

Kerala HC14 Jan 2016CRL.A/2181/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an appeal against conviction and sentence for abkari violations. The court modified the original two-year sentence to three months imprisonment and a fine of one lakh rupees, with set-off for remand custody, relying on a Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to imprisonment for 3 months and fine of ₹1 lakh; set-off allowed for remand period.

Soman Vs the Excise Inspector — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | 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 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/24TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

CRL.A.No. 2181 of 2004 (C)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 312/2003 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC)FAST TRACK COURT-II, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 20-11-2004 (C.P.113/2002 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ADOOR)

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/ACCUSED::

¶8

SOMAN, S/O. KARUTHAKOCHU, PALATHADATHIL VEEDU, POOZHIKKADU MURI, PANDALAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.SALIM V.S. SRI.M.K.HARIKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT::

¶11

1. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, ADOOR RANGE.

¶12

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

acd

¶16

P.D. RAJAN, J.

¶17

Crl.Appeal No.2181 of 2004

¶18

Dated this the 14^th day of January, 2016 JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal is preferred by the accused against the

¶20

conviction and sentence in S.C.312/2003 of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track-II, Pathanamthitta for offence punishable u/s.55(a) and 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. The charge against the accused is that on 21.8.2000 at 11.30 a.m.

¶21

he was found in possession of 5 liters of arrack near the culvert infront of the house of Palathadom Lawerence on the

¶22

pathway starting from Killiyath Mukku by the Excise Inspector Adoor Range public road. The accused was arrested and contraband articles were seized. After completing investigation, Excise Inspector, Adoor Range

¶23

filed a final report before Judicial First Class Magistrate

¶24

Crl. Appeal No.2181/2004 2

¶25

Court, Adoor from there the case was committed to Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. Subsequently, it was made over to the Additional Sessions Court.

¶26

During trial, prosecution examined PW1 to PW5

¶27

and marked Ext.P1 to Ext.P8. MO1 was also admitted in evidence. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning him. He was also heard u/s.232 Cr.P.C, but he did not adduce any defence evidence. The trial Court convicted the accused u/s.8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and fine of

¶28

₹1 lakh, in default, simple imprisonment for one year. Being aggrieved by that, he preferred this appeal.

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the sentence imposed by the trial Court is too harsh. The appellant is a coolie worker and no criminal

¶30

Crl. Appeal No.2181/2004

¶31

¶32

antecedents were reported against him. Hence, he prays to modify the sentence.

¶33

The offence was detected by PW1, who was the Excise Inspector, Adoor Range. His evidence shows that at 11.30 a.m., while he was conducting patrol duty, he reached at the place of occurrence and appellant was found carrying MO1 kannas. On seeing the Excise party, he abandoned the Can and ran away. PW1 chased him, but he did not arrest the appellant. Subsequently, he detected MO1 and identified it as arrack. He took 180ml as sample. He seized the articles after preparing Ext.P1 mahazar, reaching at the Excise Office, he registered a crime and occurrence report (101/2000). Ext.P2 is the crime and occurrence report. He forwarded thondi list before Court. He identified the signature in Ext.P3. Ext.P4 is the thondy list. He sealed the sample at the place of occurrence.

¶34

Crl. Appeal No.2181/2004 4

¶35

Ext.P5 is the chemical analysis report, in which 30.53% of ethyl alcohol was detected. He also gave Ext.P7 to the wife of the appellant. The accused was produced before Court as per Ext.P8 remand application. During cross examination, he admitted that he is familiar with the accused, that is why he arrested him on a later stage. PW2 did not see the occurrence. He attested Ext.P1 mahazar. PW3 was the Asst. Excise Inspector, who conducted investigation in this case. He questioned the witness. PW4 verified the records and filed final report. PW5 accompanied PW1 for patroling duty. He also reiterated the same version given by PW1. Therefore, a combined reading of the oral evidence of PW1 and PW5 shows that they have identified the accused and the trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted the accused under Section 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. Considering

¶36

Crl. Appeal No.2181/2004 5

¶37

the nature of offence, I modify the sentence as follows:Relied decision in Sasikumar v. State of Kerala [2012 (4) KLT 867(SC).

¶38

Appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for 3 months under Section 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act and fine of 1₹ lakh, in default, simple imprisonment for 15 days. The period of detention undergone by the accused during the investigation, inquiry or trial shall be set off against the terms of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

¶39

Crl.Appeal is disposed of as above.

¶40

P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.

¶41

acd

Soman v. the Excise Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soman 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

Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

M.P.Stanley Vs P.v.Sivaraman

State of Kerala Vs Chellappan Kani Karunakaran Kani

Prabhakaran Vs State of Kerala

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

P.O.Sukumaran @ Kunhukunhu Vs the Sub Inspector of Police