Allowed

Aravindakshan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Sept 2016CRL.A/841/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the criminal appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act. The court held that proceedings were illegal because the crime report was registered by a Preventive Officer and the investigation was conducted by an Inspector of a different range, violating departmental notifications.

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence passed by the court below are set aside, and the appellant is acquitted.

Aravindakshan Vs the State of Kerala — Money Laundering | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/11TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

CRL.A.No. 841 of 2009 (A)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC.29/2009 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, MANJERI DATED 25-03-2009

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

ARAVINDAKSHAN S/O.SHANMUGHAN, CHOLAKKAPURAYIL HOUSE, PULIKKAL, OLAVATTUR MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, MALAPPURAM - THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH CPURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31.

¶12

R BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ALEX M.THOMBRA

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶15

¶16

Crl. Appeal No.841 of 2009

¶17

Dated this the 2^nd day of September, 2016

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶20

Appellant is the accused in SC No.29/2009 of the Additional Sessions Court, Adhoc-II, Manjeri, who stands convicted under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and

¶21

to pay a fine of ₹1 lakh, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

¶22

The prosecution case is that on 09.02.2008 at

¶23

9.20 a.m., the accused was found keeping in his possession

¶24

20 litres of wash for brewing arrack, at Olavattoor in Pulikkal

¶25

Crl.A.841/2009

¶26

: 2 :

¶27

Panchayat, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

¶28

PW1 Preventive Officer of Excise, Malappuram Range, detected the offence. He seized the contraband through Ext.P1 mahazar and placed the accused under arrest through Ext.P2 arrest memo. A sample of 500 ml. was drawn from the contraband. He reached the excise office with the accused, contraband, sample and records and registered Ext.P4 crime and occurrence report. He produced the property before court through Ext.P6 property list. Forwarding note was furnished, the copy of which is Ext.P5. PW4 Excise Inspector, Manjeri Range, conducted the investigation and filed the complaint.

¶29

On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 4 were examined, Exts.P1 to P10 were marked and MO1 was identified. No defence evidence was adduced. The court below found the accused guilty of the offence under Section

¶30

Crl.A.841/2009

¶31

: 3 :

¶32

55(g) of the Abkari Act, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him as aforesaid.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and

¶34

learned Public Prosecutor.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued

¶36

that there is total illegality in the registration of the crime and occurrence report as well as in the filing of the complaint in the matter. It is argued that PW1 was not authorised to register the crime and occurrence report and further that PW4, who conducted the investigation, was not authorised

¶37

or empowered to conduct the investigation and to file the final report in the case.

¶38

From the evidence of PW1 itself and the contents of Ext.P4 crime and occurrence report, it is evident that Ext.P4 was registered by PW1 Preventive Officer of Excise. Further, from the evidence of PW4 and the contents of the final report, it is evident that while PW4 was the Excise

¶39

Crl.A.841/2009

¶40

: 4 :

¶41

Inspector, Manjeri Excise Range, he conducted the investigation and he filed the final report. As per notification SRO No.234/1967, all officers of the Excise Department, not below the rank of Excise Inspector, are appointed as Abkari Officers to perform the acts and duties mentioned in Sections 40 to 53 of the Abkari Act, within the areas for which they are appointed.

¶42

PW1 was the Preventive Officer of Excise. He

¶43

was not empowered or authorised or appointed as an abkari officer to register the crime and occurrence report. That itself is a gross illegality. Apart from that, PW4 was not appointed as an Excise Inspector of the Malappuram Excise Range. Ext.P4 crime and occurrence report is of the Malappuram Excise Range. When the same was investigated by PW4, who was the Excise Inspector of Manjeri Excise Range, the same is also in gross violation of the aforesaid notification. Matters being so, all the

¶44

Crl.A.841/2009

¶45

: 5 :

¶46

proceedings in the case have become illegal and, therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below as against the appellant are liable to be set aside.

¶47

In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the court below as against the appellant are set aside. The appellant is acquitted.

¶48

Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶49

aks/02/09

¶50

// True Copy //

¶51

PA to Judge

Aravindakshan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aravindakshan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Moothoran Chathan Vs State of Kerala

Nallaveeran Vs State of Kerala

K.a.Hashim Vs State of Kerala

Raghavan Pillai Vs a.B.Sihabudeen & State of Kerala

Murukan Vs State of Kerala

V.Gopalakrishnan Vs State of Kerala