Criminal appeal challenging conviction for illicit arrack brewing. Court upheld conviction and sentence, finding police testimony credible and procedural cures effective.
The appeal was dismissed; the conviction and sentence were upheld; appellant ordered to surrender on 08.08.2022.
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 P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1944
CRL.A NO. 711 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.07.2014 IN S.C.NO.156/2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - I, KASARAGOD / I ADDITIONAL MACT, KASARAGODE
(CP 184/2010 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
-I,HOSDRUG)
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
K. RAJENDRAN AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.KINNI, SARKARI HOUSE, SARKARI COLONY, ENNAPPARA, THAYANNUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV SMT.T.SUDHAMANI
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
SMT MAYA M.N- P.P
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 17.06.2022, THE COURT ON 28.06.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Crl.Appeal No.711 of 2014
JUDGMENT
S.C.No.156 of 2011 arose on a report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Ambalathara Police Station, under Section 50 of the Abkari Act, 1077 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Hosdurg. The report was submitted alleging commission of an offence punishable under Sections 55(a), (b) and (g) of the Abkari Act. The Magistrate committed the case as provided in Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Sessions Court, Kasaragod, after taking cognizance of the offences, made over it to the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kasaragod. After trial, the appellant/accused was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Sections 55(a) and (g) of the Abkari Act. The legality of the said judgment is under challenge in this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code.
3
Crl.Appeal No.711 of 2014
attached to his residential building. He was caught redhanded by PW6, the Sub Inspector of Police, Ambalathara Police Station.
he iterated that the case was foisted against him and he did not involve in the alleged act of brewing of illicit arrack or possessing any contraband articles as alleged. The Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides, found that the prosecution satisfactorily proved the guilt of the accused.
4
Crl.Appeal No.711 of 2014
5
Crl.Appeal No.711 of 2014
went to the house of the accused. They took PWs.2 and 3 along with them to the house. PW6 deposed that they found the appellant at the lean-to of that house on its eastern side, where the utensils for distillation of arrack were seen. The appellant was dealing with those articles. 15 litres of wash inside a 50-litre aluminium vessel and 1.5 litres of arrack in a 10-litre plastic can and ½ litre arrack in a 5 litre capacity aluminium pot were found in his possession. On convincing that those articles were arrack and wash, PW6 prepared samples from both. After sealing and labelling, the remaining wash was destroyed and all other articles were taken into custody. Ext.P2 is the mahazar prepared for the seizure of the said articles. In order to arrest the appellant, PW6 prepared Ext.P1 arrest memo. Ext.P6 inspection memo was also prepared. PWs.2 and 3 signed Exts.P1 and P2. After coming back to the police station, PW6 registered the crime as per Ext.P7, First Information Report.
among others, to the place of occurrence. PW1 also deposed
6
Crl.Appeal No.711 of 2014
in detail regarding the search, seizure and arrest. PWs 2 and 3 are residents of the same housing colony where the appellant is residing. They stated they have acquaintance with the appellant, and signed Ext.P1 arrest memo and Ext.P2 mahazar. But they denied having seen the search and seizure.
By admitting that they signed Exts.P1 and P2, their evidence supports the version of PWs.1 and 6 that they reached the house of the appellant as they claimed. Of course, their evidence has no further use as far as the case of the prosecution is concerned.
part of their official duty, they detected the offence and conducted the process of search and seizure. The appellant has no case that they have any kind of enmity towards him.
7
Crl.Appeal No.711 of 2014
10. The Apex Court in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) [ AIR 2003 SC 1311] held that,-
“The testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds. It will all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no principle of general application can be laid down.”
In the light of the said principle of law, the evidence of PWs.1 and 6 regarding the arrest and seizure has to be accepted as true.
8
Crl.Appeal No.711 of 2014
the samples were produced in court by the Station House Officer of the same police station, who is none other than PW6. In the said circumstances, there cannot be found any missing link in the matter of production of samples before the court. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in that regard is not able to be accepted.
9
Crl.Appeal No.711 of 2014
contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that there was non-compliance with the provisions of Section 53A of the Abkari Act cannot be countenanced.
10
Crl.Appeal No.711 of 2014
State of Kerala ) in order to buttress her argument that there are violations of the procedural requirements under Section 53A and hence the prosecution of the appellant under the provisions of the Abkari Act should fail. I found above that there is no such procedural irregularity in this case, and therefore, the said decision is also not of avail to the appellant.
Kumaran P. v. State of Kerala & another [2016 (5) KHC
632] . In that case, this Court held that the case of the prosecution could not be accepted for the reason that the forwarding note as per which the samples were sent for chemical examination contained blank spaces creating doubts on its genuineness. No doubt, the prosecution is bound to prove before court that the sample drawn from the contraband seized from the possession of the accused has been under proper custody and from such custody it was entrusted with the Chemical Examiner. Any lapse in that process certainly creates doubt regarding the genuineness of
11
Crl.Appeal No.711 of 2014
the certificate obtained from the Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory. In this case, Ext.P9 forwarding note does not contain any such blemishes. The sample was seen duly forwarded to the laboratory and Ext.P11 report was obtained properly. In the light of Ext.P11, it can well be found that the samples were arrack and wash. In the light of the said evidence, the findings rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kasaragod, that the accused has committed
an offence under Sections 55(a) and (g) of the Abkari Act is legal and proper. There is no reason to interfere with the same.
12
Crl.Appeal No.711 of 2014
The appellant shall surrender before the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kasaragod, on 08.08.2022.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dkr
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction and sentence under the Abkari Act based on police testimony and seizure was sustainable in law.
Whether procedural delays in sample production and documentation violations of Section 53A affected the validity of conviction.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the substantive sentence of one year imprisonment and fine.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)Explained¶43
Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) [AIR 2003 SC 1311] · Who else cites this
Balakrishna Rai v. State of KeralaDistinguished¶54
Balakrishna Rai v. State of Kerala [2020 (3) KHC 286]
T.Bhaskaran v. State of KeralaDistinguished¶55
T.Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala
Kumaran P. v. State of Kerala & anotherDistinguished¶59
Kumaran P. v. State of Kerala & another [2016 (5) KHC 632]
4 provisions across 2 enactments
K. RAJENDRAN
STATE OF KERALA
P.G. AJITHKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
P.G. AJITHKUMAR
Parties & counsel
