High Court allowed criminal appeal in part, maintaining conviction for possession of arrack under Abkari Act but reduced sentence from rigorous to simple imprisonment of 45 days plus 15 days on default.
Conviction maintained; sentence modified to simple imprisonment for 45 days and fine of Rs. 1 lakh with default imprisonment of 15 days.
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 B.KEMAL PASHA
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/14TH SRAVANA, 1938
CRL.A.No. 526 of 2009 (A)
JUDGMENT DATED 18-02-2009 IN SC 210/2006 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, KALPETTA
APPELLANT(S)/ACCUSED NO.1:
SUKUMARAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, PUTHUKADU ESTATE PADY, MUPPAINADU.
BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.HYMA S.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
B. KEMAL PASHA, J.
................................................................ Crl. Appeal No. 526 of 2009
............................................................... Dated this the 5th day of August, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.210/06 of the Additional Sessions Court(Adhoc-II), Kalpetta, who stands convicted under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of ₹1 lakh, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two more months.
Crl. Appeal No. 526 of 2009
-: 2 :-
in a plastic cover, and the bottle was found containing one litre of arrack. The 2nd accused was allegedly holding a can of 10 litres capacity, which contained only remnants of arrack. The 3rd accused was found holding a glass tumbler. On seeing the police party the accused took to heels and the police party chased them and they could apprehend the appellant alone.
Crl. Appeal No. 526 of 2009
-: 3 :-
were identified. No defence evidence was adduced. The court below found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him as aforesaid. The court below acquitted A2 and A3 in the case.
he along with the police party could catch the appellant red handed. The contraband was seized from his possession through Ext.P2 mahazar. The appellant was placed under arrest through Ext.P1 arrest memo. Two samples of 180 ml each were drawn from the contraband. The evidence of
Crl. Appeal No. 526 of 2009
-: 4 :-
PW4 stands fully corroborated by the evidence of PW1.
PW1 was one of the police constables who was present
along with PW4 at the time of the seizure.
Crl. Appeal No. 526 of 2009
-: 5 :-
on hearing either side, this Court is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to find the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act, and the conviction passed by the court below is not liable to be interfered with.
Crl. Appeal No. 526 of 2009
-: 6 :-
In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed in part by maintaining the conviction and modifying the sentence as follows:
“The appellant is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 45 days and to pay a fine of ₹1 lakh, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days more. It is made clear that the appellant is entitled to set off, of the period of detention already undergone by him in connection with the investigation, inquiry and trial of this case, under Section 428 Cr.P.C.”
Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.
ul/-
// true copy //
P.S. to Judge.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act is sustainable in view of the evidence.
Whether the sentence imposed is appropriate considering the meagre quantity of contraband involved.
Whether the appellant is entitled to set-off for detention already undergone.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sasikumar v. State of KeralaReferred¶43
Sasikumar v. State of Kerala [2012 (4) KLT 867 (SC)]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SUKUMARAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, PUTHUKADU ESTATE PADY, MUPPAINADU
THE STATE OF KERALA
B.KEMAL PASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
B.KEMAL PASHA
Parties & counsel
