Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12320
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
CHANDRIKA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 763/2002
Possession of illicit liquor validated by procedural compliance and evidence sufficiency under the Abkari Act.
Headnote:
Liquor - Conviction - Abkari Act - Section 58 - The court upheld the conviction under Section 58 of the Abkari Act due to substantial evidence of illegal possession of arrack, validating procedural and evidential integrity while exercising leniency in sentencing.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was arrested for possessing 1.5 liters of illicit arrack. Evidence from law enforcement supported the prosecution’s claim, and a chemical test confirmed the substance was illegal alcohol.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed the conviction as it found no procedural errors or evidential issues. The evidence presented by prosecution witnesses was consistent and corroborative.
Issues: Whether the conviction under the Abkari Act was justified based on the evidence provided and if leniency in sentencing was warranted.
Ratio Decidendi: The conviction was based on consistent evidence from multiple witnesses and procedural adherence, reinforcing the validity of the arrest and seizure under the Abkari Act.
Final Decision: Conviction upheld; sentence modified to imprisonment till the rising of the court with a minimum fine.
O R D E R
Revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.2578/1996 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Pattambi. The Circle Inspector of Excise, Ottapalam, who was examined as PW4, prosecuted the revision petitioner accusing offence under Section 58 of the Abkari Act with an allegation that at 4.30 p.m on 16.10.1995, while PW1, a Preventive Officer attached to Ottapalam Excise Range moving on patrol duty along with other officials through Veluthur-Mahjambra panchayat road, the revision petitioner was found coming across them with a jerry can, which was marked as MO1, containing 1.5 litres of illicit arrack. Seeing PW1 and party, the revision petitioner attempted to turn away. She was intercepted, the contents in MO1 were tested by smell and taste and convinced that it was nothing but illicit arrack. Therefore, the revision petitioner was arrested. MO1 with the liquid was seized. 180 mls was taken in a sample bottle. Ext.P1 seizure mahazer was : 2:
prepared for the arrest and seizure. The revision petitioner was released on bail. MO1 and the sample with Ext.P1 mahazer were produced before PW4. PW4 registered a case and proceeded with the investigation. The sample was forwarded to the Chemical Examiner, who by Ext.P2 report certified that the sample contained 49.1% ethyl alcohol by volume. After completing the investigation charge sheet was filed.
2. Since the revision petitioner pleaded not guilty before the trial court, she was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 4 were examined. Exts.P1, P2 and MO1 were marked. After closing the evidence for the prosecution, the revision petitioner was questioned under Section 313 (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revision petitioner denied the incriminating evidence and advanced a plea that she was falsely implicated. However, no defence evidence was let in.
3. The learned Magistrate on appraisal of the evidence arrived at a conclusion of guilty. Consequently the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for two months and a fine of Rs.15,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for a further period : 3:
of two months. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner preferred Crl.A.No.167/1997 before the Sessions Judge, Palakkad. The Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc-II), to whom the appeal was made over, by judgment dated 25.5.2002 concurred with the trial court and the appeal was dismissed. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition was preferred.
4. I have heard Smt.K.K. Meera Nambiar, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Smt.M.G. Lisha, the learned Government Pleader. Perused the judgment impugned. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner took me through the relevant portions of the evidence.
5. PW1, the Preventive Officer, had given evidence in support of the prosecution case. PW2, the Excise Guard accompanying PW1, also had given supporting evidence. Though they were subjected to searching cross examination, regarding the arrest and seizure, there is no much challenge. Nothing is brought in evidence or suggested to conclude that the revision petitioner was falsely implicated for any reason : 4:
whotsoever. PWs 1 and 2 had identified MO1 and Ext.P1.PW3, the independent witness, though denied having witnessed the arrest and seizure, admitted the signature in Ext.P1 which corroborates with the evidence of PW1 regarding the arrest of the revision petitioner and seizure of MO1 with liquor.
6. PW4 would depose about the process of investigation. He would depose that the material objects were received to him from PW1 in sealed condition and it was produced before the court on the next day. Since there was some amendment to the Abkari Act, the material objects were returned to PW4 and it was represented on 19.1.1996. Through court, the sample was sent to the chemical
