High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
THANKACHAN v. EXCISE INSPECTOR, KUNNAMANGALAM - Crl Rev Pet No. 1083 of 2000  RD-KL 14365 (27 July 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMCrl Rev Pet No. 1083 of 2000()
1. EXCISE INSPECTOR, KUNNAMANGALAM
For Petitioner :SRI.ANIL THOMAS(T)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
O R D E R
J.B. KOSHY, J.Crl.R.P. NO. 1083 of 2000
Dated this the 27th day of July, 2007Order Appellant and his wife were charge-sheeted for offences punishable under section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act. While conducting a search in the unnumbered house belonging to the first accused, which was possessed by both accused together, on 1.10.1996 at about 4.00 p.m., 37.5 litres of Indian made foreign liquor was found in 77 bottles. There was no licence to possess the same. Both husband and wife were convicted by the trial court and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- each. In appeal, the appellate court acquitted the first accused. Even though the house is in the name of the wife, first accused, the revision petitioner, was actually dealing with the liquor and he alone was convicted guilty and wife was acquitted. Revision petitioner challenges the conviction and sentence as far as he is concerned.
2. First contention raised is that the house was under construction only. It is true that it was not numbered, but, evidence would show that the liquor was Crl.RP.1083/2000 found from the bed room of the house jointly possessed by accused Nos.1 and 2. They were in joint possession, even though the property was in the name of first accused. Secondly, it was contended that samples were taken only from 4 bottles which was labelled and sealed. Petitioner had no case that except in four bottles, other bottles were empty or it contained no liquor. All the 77 bottles were sealed and labelled identically. Samples taken from the four bottles show that it was Indian made foreign liquor having alcoholic content of more than 41% per volume. Ext.P3 confession statement also shows the same. In the above circumstances, conviction on the petitioner needs was no interference. The concurrent conviction made under section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act is confirmed. There is no perversity of finding or illegality. Imposition of fine of Rs.25,000/- is the minimum fine payable at that time. Imprisonment was also compulsory. However, considering the fact that offence was committed more than ten years ago and considering the amount of fine imposed, I reduce the imprisonment from six months to one month with right of set off. The sentence is modified confirming the conviction. The Crl.RP.1083/2000 imprisonment of six months is reduced to that of one month with a fine of Rs.25,000/-. If fine is not paid, he has to undergo default sentence of another one month. The Crl.R.P. is allowed partly. J.B.KOSHY
J.B. KOSHY, J.Crl.R.P. No.1083/2000 Order
Dated:27th July, 2007
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.