2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 24959
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
K.NARAYANAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet 1055 2016
SRI.T.MADHU, SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI, SRI. M.C.ASHI
Proper inventory preparation by an authorized officer is essential for the validity of seizures under the Kerala Abkari Act; failure to comply can lead to acquittal.
Headnote:
Abkari - Prosecution - Kerala Abkari Act - Sections 53A, 67B - The court emphasized strict compliance with statutory requirements for inventory preparation under the Kerala Abkari Act, leading to the conclusion that the failure to adhere to these provisions necessitates acquittal of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was caught in possession of 10 liters of illicit arrack during a patrol. Lower courts convicted him under the Kerala Abkari Act, but the accused contested the validity of the inventory prepared for the seized liquor.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the inventory was not properly prepared according to the mandates of the Kerala Abkari Act, failing to comply with Section 53A, which necessitates preparation by an authorized officer.
Issues: Whether the inventory of the seized liquor was prepared in accordance with the requirements set out in the Kerala Abkari Act, specifically Sections 53A and 67B.
Ratio Decidendi: Strict adherence to procedural requirements under the Kerala Abkari Act is necessary for upholding a conviction, and non-compliance constitutes grounds for acquittal.
Final Decision: The revision petition is allowed, acquitting the accused of all charges.
O R D E R
The revision petitioner herein is the accused in S.C. No. 506 of
2010 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Hosdurg alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act .
2. The prosecution allegation is that, on 23.02.2008 at about 12.30 pm, while CW1, the Preventive OfÏcer, Excise Range OfÏce, Hosdurg and party were on patrol duty got reliable information from the Excise Intelligence Bureau that illicit arrack was being sold at Nelliadukkam Colony. Accordingly, CW1 and party proceeded to the spot and found the accused entering into the road from the eastern side of the community hall holding a 10-litre capacity cannas. He was intercepted and inspected and was found in possession of 10 litres of arrack and thereby the accused has committed the alleged offences.
3. The prosecution in support of their case examined PWs 1 to 4 and Exts P1 to P13 were marked. The trial Court found the accused guilty and convicted him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. The trial Court also allowed set-off.
4. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, an appeal was preferred as Crl.Appeal No.208 of 2015 wherein the same was partly allowed. While the Appellate Court confirmed the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 8(1) and 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act , modified the sentence by reducing the substantive sentence to rigorous imprisonment for two years.
5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that there is no strict compliance of Section 53A of the Act in as much as the inventory has not been prepared by the authorized ofÏcer, i.e., an ofÏcer not below the rank of Assistant Excise Inspector and that the same was prepared by PW1 who was the Excise Inspector at the relevant point of time, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
6. Though it is true that the scope of interference by this court exercising revisional jurisdiction is limited, it does not preclude this court from examining whether there is strict compliance with the statutory formalities mandated as per the Abkari Act. This court inBaburaj v. State of Kerala, 2021 (6) KLT 416, has held that given the stringent nature of the provisions of the Act and the harsh sentence provided, strict compliance of the statutory formalities specified in the Act is necessary. The presumption of ofÏcial acts to have been performed regularly and properly as provided in Section 114 (e) of the Evidence Act has no application if ofÏcial acts are not shown to be performed properly, as held inSathi v. State of Kerala, 2007 (1) KLT SN 57. In this backdrop, it is to be considered as to whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused without any reasonable doubt. 7. Let me consider the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner regarding noncompliance of Section 53A of the Abkari Act. reads as follows:
“53A. Disposal of seized liquor, intoxicating drugs or articles.
-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the State Government may having regard to the nature of the liquor, intoxicating drug, or article, their vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraints of proper storage space or any other relevant consideration, by notification in the ofÏcial Gazette, specify such liquor, intoxicating drug or article which shall, as soon as may be after their seizure, be disposed of by the authorised ofÏcer referred to in section 67B, in such manner as the Government may, from time to time determine after following the procedure hereinafter specified.
(2) Where any such notified liquor, intoxicating drug or, article has been seized under this Act, the authorised ofÏcer shall prepare an inventory of such liquor, intoxicating drug or article containing such details relating to their descrip