Back
AJAY RASTOGI, C. T. RAVIKUMAR
Sunil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rastogi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The correctness of the judgment passed by the High Court of Kerala dated 24th November, 2020 in Criminal Appeal No. 460 of 2006 is a subject matter of challenge in appeal before this Court.
3. The appellant, after facing trial, was convicted for the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and Section 309 IPC and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lakh only) each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 55(a) of Abkari Act and further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/ (Rupees Two Thousand only) under Section 309 IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by judgment dated 7th October 2005.
4. On appeal being preferred, the High Court while upholding conviction, modified the sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh only), in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and conviction and sentence under Section 309 IPC was set aside, that became a subject matter of challenge in appeal before this Court.
5. As per the case of the prosecu
Sentence can be reduced keeping in view long lapse of time as well as absence of criminal antecedents of accused.
Sentence can be reduced keeping in view long lapse of time as well as advance age of accused.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appeal against a composite sentence of fine and imprisonment shall not abate on the death of the accused, and the court is bound to decide....
The court emphasized the importance of witness credibility and procedural adherence in upholding a conviction under the Abkari Act.
The court clarified the distinction between offences under Sections 55(a) and 58 of the Abkari Act regarding the nature of possession and corresponding penalties.
The prosecution must establish a proper chain of custody and tamper-proof collection of evidence to secure a conviction under the Abkari Act.
The prosecution must prove the illegality of possession beyond reasonable doubt, especially when the context of prohibition is absent.
Possession of liquor does not constitute an offence under the Abkari Act in the absence of evidence of illegal import or transport.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
