IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (@ SLP(CRL.) No.20667/2025)

RAJAN APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS STATE OF KERALA RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The appellant has been charged and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act (for short, ‘the Act’).

4. The case of the prosecution against the appellant is that he was found to be in possession of 10 liters of illicit arrack. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1 Lakh by the Trial Court. The same was confirmed by the Signature Not Verified First Appellate Court.

SWETA BALODI Date: 2026.02.27 Reason: 5. On appeal, the High Court, vide the impugned order, while confirming the conviction rendered against the appellant, modified the sentence imposed upon the appellant to six months of simple imprisonment and confirmed the fine of Rs.1 Lakh which is the minimum fine under Section 8(2) of the Act.

6. We had issued a limited notice with respect to the quantum of sentence alone.

7. It is to be noted that the appellant is not a habitual offender and the recovery made from the appellant is only 10 liters of illicit arrack. He is an illiterate person.

8. Considering the aforesaid mitigating circumstances, we are inclined to modify the sentence imposed upon the appellant to the period he had already undergone, pursuant to the arrest made earlier.

9. Insofar as the amount of fine is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State brought it to the notice of this Court that the minimum fine under Section 8(2)

of the Act is Rs.1 Lakh.

10.In our considered view, the said mandate is impossible to be complied with by a person like the appellant. Perhaps it would make more sense if no minimum limit is fixed under Section 8(2) of the Act. Therefore, the Court can apply it depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. When the appellant is making a living by selling 10 liters of arrack which in the process may help him earn only a few hundreds of rupees, it is impossible to say that he would be in a position to pay a fine of Rs.1 Lakh. Section 8(2) of the Act also does not speak about any default sentence.

11.Thus, taking note of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, by invoking the power conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950, we modify the fine to Rs.5,000/-, payable within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

12.The appeal is allowed in part.

13.Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

……………………………………………………………………J.

[M.M. SUNDRESH]

………………………………………………………………………J. [NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH]

NEW DELHI;

23^rd FEBRUARY, 2026 ITEM NO.47 COURT NO.5 SECTION II-D S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 20667/2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08-12-2023 in CRRP No. 2534/2012 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam]

RAJAN Petitioner(s)

VERSUS STATE OF KERALA Respondent(s)

Date : 23-02-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH For Petitioner(s) Ms. Megha Karnwal, AOR Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv.

Mr. Aaditya Thorat, Adv. Mr. Muktesh Bajpai, Adv.

Ms. Awanitika, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, AOR Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv.

Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Adv.

Mr. Mahabir Singh, Adv.

Dr. Arunender Thakur, Adv.

Mr. Anshul Saharan, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed in part in terms of the signed order.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(SWETA BALODI) (POONAM VAID)

ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Signed order is placed on the file)