1995 Supreme(SC) 85

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
E. K. Chandrasenan, Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 422 of 1990 (with Cri. A. Nos. 562, 563-64 and 574 of 1990)
Decided on 17-1-1995.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 326, 328 and 272 - Convictions under - Appeal Adulteration of liquor - Death of 70 persons - 24 persons having lost their eye sights - Liquor supplied by- a firm - Four accused being in active management of firm - Active participation of four accused in despicable act under taken by them - Motive to derive wrongful gain from adulteration - Convictions recorded are legally sustainable.

       Held: The acceptance of the formula given by A 9 in mixing "spirit" or water with arrack was itself an illegal act. Secondly, in the present case what was mixed was not "spirit" but, as already noted, poisonous substance, as is methyl alcohol. The percentage of methyl found in the liquor supplied by the firm being what was found to be, it has to be held that the persons responsible for mixing had the knowledge that consumption of the liquor was likely to cause very serious adverse effects. The contention that all the consumers were not adversely effected cannot water down the mens rea required to bring home the guilt under section 326. (Para 26)

       Further held: As many as 24 persons having lost their eye sights permanently, the hurt in question has to be regarded as "grievous" because of what was been stated in clause Secondly of section 320. (Para 29)

       Consequently Held: We uphold the conviction of the five accused before us under section 326. This being the position, nothing further is required to be stated regarding the guilt under section 328, because it cannot be urged, as was faintly sought to be done, that the present was not a case where the accused persons had "caused" liquor to be taken by the affected persons. We have said so as it was the liquor supplied by the firm to the shops and sub-shops which was consumed; and so, it has to be held that the consumers were made to take the liquor supplied by the firm. Other requirements of section 328 being present, the conviction under section 328 too was rightful. (Para 30)

       (ii) Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 136 - Issue of suo motu notice of enhancement of sentence – Non filing of appeal by State on question of sentence - Whether rule of enhancement could have been issued by Supreme Court? - (Yes)

       Held, that the appellate power available to this Court under Article 136 is not circumscribed by any limitation. We are therefore, inclined to think that being a court to whom appeals lie from the judgments of the High Court, it would have the same power which is available to a High Court; and in exercise of such a power the rule of enhancement could have been issued. (Para 37)

       Further Held: What is contained in Article 142 would in any case provide sufficient power to this Court to pass an order like one at hand, if this Court were to be of the view that the same is necessary for doing complete justice. (Para 40)

       Consequently Held: We entertain no doubt that this Court has power in an appropriate case to issue suo motu rule of enhancement. (Para 42)

       (iii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 326 - Conviction under - Adulteration of liquor -70 consumers died and 24 lost their eye sights permanently - Motive to derive wrongful gain from adulteration - Sentence enhanced to imprisonment for life.

       Held: Whether the sentences on the appellants merit to be enhanced. On this aspect, according to us, there cannot be two opinions, as the appellants by their nefarious activity, prompted only by lust for money, sold such a brew which contained even a poisonous substance. And see the enormity of consequence: 70 deaths and 24 losing their eye sights permanently. What can be more shocking to the conscience? If greed for money makes people so unconscionable, so unconcerned with human happiness and make them behave like devils and to destroy human lives, they have to be dealt with appropriately, sternly and with a steel heart not yielding to any plea of softness on any ground, not relenting to discharge the onerous duty which falls on a court in such cases. The need to rise to the occasion becomes great and imperative when it is noted that liquor barons have long been playing with destinies of many with impugnity for one reason or the other, which has encouraged them to indulge in such an activity without fear of law haunting them. This is abundantly clear from deaths due to consumption of spurious liquor in different parts of the country. This has become almost regular feature and hooch tragedy has been taking heavy toll of human lives almost every year in one part or the other of this vast country. (Para 46)

       Further Held: So, retribution itself demands enhancement. Deterrence lends further support to the demand. Let us all strive to check such atrocious acts. We would be indeed failing in our duty if we were not to do so. And the least we can do in the cases at hand is to see that the maximum sentence visualised by our law makers is awarded to all the appellants before us. There can hardly be more appropriate occasion than the one at hand to award the maximum sentence. (Para 47)