Partly allowed

Reghu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Dec 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/1614/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a criminal revision, confirmed the conviction of the accused under the Abkari Act for possession of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. However, finding incarceration unwarranted due to the age of the case and nature of offense, the Court modified the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 5,000.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence modified to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 5,000.

Reghu Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1614 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 803/2010 of ADDL.D.C. & SESSIONS COURT - V, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 16.10.2014

¶7

AGAINST JUDGMENT IN SC 1396/2007 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM DATED8.10.2010

¶8

CRIME NO. 73/2005 OF TRIVANDRUM EXCISE RANGE OFFICE , THIRUVANANDAPURAM

¶9

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED :

¶10

REGHU S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 65 YEARS, TC 42/683, SREE VARAHAM WARD, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER

¶12

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. T.R. RENJITH

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶18

¶19

Crl.R.P. No. 1614 of 2016

¶20

- - - - Dated 1^st December, 2016

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

1.This revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with

¶24

Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶25

2.The petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.1396 of 2007 on

¶26

the file of the 1^st Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. In the aforesaid case, he was charged under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act.

¶27

3.The prosecution allegation is that on 9.11.2005 at about 12.30 pm, the Excise party raided the house of the petitioner herein and on inspection, he was found having in his possession 18.750 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL). The contraband articles were seized, the petitioner was arrested and consequently a crime was registered. After investigation, final report was laid before the Jurisdictional Court.

¶28

Crl.R.P. No.1614 of 2016 -2-

¶29

4.Before the trial court, the prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses to prove its case as PW1 to PW6 and through them Exts.P1 to P11 were exhibited and marked. MO1 to MO4 series were produced and identified. The learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment found the petitioner guilty and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh with default clause.

¶30

5.Against the finding of guilt, conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred Crl.A.No.803 of 2010. The appeal was allowed in part and the sentence was modified.The petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default clause. The aforesaid concurrent findings of the courts below are under challenge in this revision petition.

¶31

6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶32

Crl.R.P. No.1614 of 2016 -3-

¶33

7.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the seizure effected by the detecting officer was illegal and the same could not have been relied on by the courts below. According to the learned counsel, the contraband items were not sealed and labelled in accordance with law and on that sole ground, he is entitled for an acquittal. It is also submitted that the place from where the contraband was seized was not in exclusive possession of the petitioner. It is also urged that section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act will not be attracted in the facts and circumstances. Finally, it is submitted that the petitioner who was arrested on 9.11.2005 underwent detention till 19.11.2005 on which day he was released on bail. According to the learned counsel, the instant case was of the year 2005 and more than 11 years have elapsed and at this length of time, incarceration of the petitioner is unwarranted.

¶34

Crl.R.P. No.1614 of 2016 -4-

¶35

8.The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that the contention presently raised by the petitioner have already been considered by the courts below and the finding concurrently arrived at are not liable to be interfered. It is submitted that the revision petition is without merits and the same be dismissed.

¶36

9.I have heard the rival submissions and have gone through the materials on record. There cannot be any doubt that the courts below have meticulously considered the reliability of the materials and the findings arrived are supported by cogent and convincing reasons. The contentions now raised by the learned counsel are not such as to warrant interference by this Court in revision. The powers of revision is conferred for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such

¶37

Crl.R.P. No.1614 of 2016 -5-

¶38

inferior court. Therefore, the examination of the record is limited in scope and is with a view to ascertain whether there is justification for interfering in the light of the scope of the revision as laid down in the aforesaid sections. I am of the view that no grounds are made out and the conviction arrived at by the courts below are only to be confirmed.

¶39

10.What now survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy or inadequacy of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. It is borne out from records that the crime was registered in the year 2005 and the petitioner was in custody for a period of 10 days. The offence committed by the petitioner is possession of excess quantity of IMFL. I am of the considered view that penal servitude by way of incarceration is unwarranted in the facts and circumstances . Having regard to the above, I am of the view that the sentence can be modified and

¶40

Crl.R.P. No.1614 of 2016 -6-

¶41

the petitioner can be directed to pay a fine of Rs.5000/and to undergo imprisonment till the rising of Court.

¶42

11.Consequently, this Revision Petition will stand disposed of confirming the conviction but modifying the sentence imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner shall undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court and he shall remit the fine amount of Rs.5,000/ - before the trial court within a period of two weeks, if the same has not been remitted earlier, and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple Imprisonment for one month.

¶43

Petition is disposed of.

¶44

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶45

kp/-1.12.16

Reghu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reghu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siddque Vs State of Kerala

Mukesh Vs State of Kerala

Noufal Vs State of Kerala

E.P.Siyad Vs State of Kerala

Fazil Vs State of Kerala

Roby Varghese Vs the State of Kerala