Dismissed

Gopinadhan Pillai v. the Excise Inspector

Kerala HC13 Nov 2023Crl.Rev.Pet/1327/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition was disposed of as the trial petitioner had died without his near relatives prosecuting the appeal. The Court confined the petition to the record room citing Pazhani v. State of Kerala, noting that a fine of Rs.1 lakh remained enforceable against the estate.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is confined to the record room and disposed of.

Gopinadhan Pillai Vs the Excise Inspector — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1945
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1327 OF 2014

¶5

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 1467/2009 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY

¶6

CRA 53/2013 OF III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED:

¶7

GOPINADHAN PILLAI
AGED 65 YEARS

¶8

S/O.RAGHAVA KURUP, THAMARASSERY THARAYIL VEEDU,
THENGAMAM MURI, PALLICKAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADV SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶11

1 THE EXCISE INSPECTOR SASTHAMCOTTAH EXCISE RANGE, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶12

2 THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT SEETHA S

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶16

-:2:-

¶17

Crl.R.P.No.1327 of 2014

¶18

Dated this the 13^th day of November, 2023

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The revision petition is filed challenging the judgment in Crl.A. No.53/2013 of the Court of the III

¶21

Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam (Appellate Court), confirming the judgment in S.C. No.1467/2009 of the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Karunagappally (Trial Court), holding the revision petitioner guilty and convicting and sentencing him for the offence under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. The revision petitioner was the first accused in the above case.

¶22

The prosecution case is that: on 17.8.2005, the first accused was found in possession of 5 litres of arrack. When he was questioned regarding the source of arrack, he informed that the same was supplied to him by the second accused. On the basis of the said information, 35 litre capacity can was seized from the second accused. Thus, the accused have committed

¶23

Crl.R.P.No.1327 of 2014

¶24

-:3:-

¶25

the above offence.

¶26

In the trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 6 and marked Exts.P1 to P9 and MO1 in evidence. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the questioning under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, ‘Code’). Pending the trial, the second accused died.

¶27

The Trial Court, after analysing the materials placed on record, found the first accused guilty and convicted him for the offence under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of thirty days. The charge against the second accused was dismissed as abated.

¶28

Aggrieved by the said judgment, the first

¶29

Crl.R.P.No.1327 of 2014

¶30

-:4:-

¶31

accused filed Criminal Appeal No.53/2013 before the Appellate Court.

¶32

The Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the materials placed on record, by the impugned judgment, confirmed the conviction, but modified the substantive sentence by reducing the sentence to one year, but confirmed the fine amount.

¶33

It is assailing the concurrent judgments of the courts below; the revision petition is filed.

¶34

Heard; Sri. Vinoy Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/first accused and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶35

When the revision petition was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is no more.

¶36

In the light of the above submission, this Court

¶37

Crl.R.P.No.1327 of 2014

¶38

-:5:-

¶39

directed the learned Public Prosecutor to ascertain, through the jurisdictional Police, as to whether the revision petitioner is no more.

¶40

The learned Public Prosecutor, on

¶41

instructions, handed over a copy of the report of the Adoor Police Station along with a copy of the death certificate of the revision petitioner and his Aadhaar Card. It is reported that the revision petitioner died on 23.4.2018.

¶42

In Pazhani v. State of Kerala [2017(1) KLT 341(FB)], a Full Bench of this Court has categorically declared the law that, pending an appeal/revision petition, if the appellant/revision petitioner/accused dies and there is a sentence of fine imposed on the accused, then near relatives of the deceased accused/ appellant/revision petitioner have a right to come on record and prosecute the appeal/revision petition. If no such application is filed, then the appeal/revision

¶43

Crl.R.P.No.1327 of 2014

¶44

-:6:-

¶45

petition will have to be confined to the record room.

¶46

In the instant case, although the revision petitioner died on 23.4.2018 i.e. more than four years back, his near relatives have not come on record to prosecute the revision petition.

¶47

Indisputably, there is sentence of fine imposed on the revision petitioner, that is to pay Rs.1,00,000/- . Therefore, I am of the definite view that revision petition is to be confined to the record room.

¶48

Following the ratio decidendi in Pazhani (supra), and taking into account the fact that the revision petitioner is directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, I order the revision petition to be confined to the record room.

¶49

Resultantly, the revision petition is disposed of by confining it to the record room.

¶50

SD/-

¶51

C.S.DIAS,JUDGE

¶52

rmm/13/11/2023

Gopinadhan Pillai v. the Excise Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopinadhan Pillai 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

Nishil Vs State of Kerala and Another

M/S.Eicher Motors Ltd. Vs C.Y.Salim and Another

M/S.Eicher Motors Ltd. Vs C.Y.Salim

Haneefa Vs State of Kerala

K.Padmanabhan Vs the State of Kerala

Anil G.L. Vs Jisha Devidson