LexCHANDRAN @ MANICHAN @ MANIYAN versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 8 S.C.R. 273 CHANDRAN @ MANICHAN @ MANIYAN v. STATE OF KERALA (Criminal Appeal No. 1528 of 2005) APRIL 4, 2011 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, Jj,] A B Abkari Act - s.57A - Spurious liquor trade - Improper mixing of noxious substance (methyl alchohol) with liquor led to death of 31 persons and blindness and grievous injuries C to several persons - A/legation that the accused were engaged in the business of manufacture, storing, sale and supply of illicit liquor which resulted in the said liquor tragedy - Conviction of A-7 and his two brothers A-8 and A-4 u/ s.57A(1)(ii), and A-25 and A-30 u/s.57A(2) - All accused D sentenced to life imprisonment - On appeal, held: Methyl alcohol was used in mixing the liquor which was under the control of A-7 who was being helped by his brothers, servants and relatives - In order to be convicted uls. 57 A, the P.rosecution is not required to prove that A-7 physically mixed E the methyl alcohol or the injurious substance with the spirit - If A-7 directed his servants to mix methanol that would also be covered within the scope of the words 'mixes or permits to be mixed' in the Section - The knowledge of A-7 that methanol was being mixed, the fact that he was running the F business along with his hirelings and the further fact that he used to be present at the time of the mixing are properly proved by the prosecution - A-8 is the real brother of A-7 and there are number of other circumstances to suggest that A-8 was actively engaged in the b.usiness - A-8 was an active G member in carrying the said spurious liquor and the fact that a vehicle under his possession found from his premises had the trace of methanol is sufficient to hold that he had the necessary knowledge that methanol played a major part in the 273 H 274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 8 S.C.R. A business - The frequent calls of A-8 to his brother also show that he was actively involved in the business - It is not necessary that A-8 had to mix or permit to be mixed the noxious substance himself - A-4 was also thoroughly in the business like his brothers A-7 and A-8 - Conviction of A-8, B A-7 and A-4 u/s.57A(1)(ii) and sentence of life imprisonment imposed thereunder accordingly maintained - As regards A- 25, it is established that he used to take the liquor manufactured by A-7 and the same used to be supplied to him by A-4 and the same was distributed by him further - A- C 25 does not seem to have taken care that it was not mixed with methyl alcohol - Once this fact regarding the possession of methyl alcohol is proved, A-25 cannot argue that the possession of methyl alcohol was only incidental - The words "omits to take reasonable precaution" would cast a duty on him D to see that the liquor that he sells is not mixed with poisonous substance - Again, under sub-section (5) of s. 57 A, he was bound to prove that he had taken reasonable precaution, as contemplated in sub-section (2) - No evidence that the accused discharged his burden in any manner - Therefore, E his conviction for offence punishable u/s.57A(2) is justified:- However, he should not be punished with life imprisonment - This accused has already undergone more than 10 years of imprisonment - Sentence brought down to the period already undergone by him - The case of A-30 more- or less F is identical with A-25 - There is enough evidence to show that A-30 was involved in the procurement of liquor from A-4 - He then packed it in the covers and supplied it - A-30 was also behind the bars for more than 10 years - His life imprisonment is also set aside and brought down to that G already undergone by him. Abkari Act- s.57A - Illicit liquor trade - Burden of proof - On whom - Held: The prosecution has the initial burden to suggest that the accused person was involved in the business of illicit liquor and that he knew the nature thereof - It is only H then that the burden would shift to the accused to prove that CHANDRAN @ MANICHAN @ MANIYAN v. STATE 275 OF KERALA he had no means to know about the nature of the business A or the fact that the liquor was being mixed with noxious substance like methanol - On facts, the prosecution had discharged its primary burden - The accused persons, more particularly, A-7, A-4 and A-8, did not offer any evidence so as to discharge the burden put against them.. B Abkari Act - s. 57 A - Mixing of noxious substance with liquor - Liability under
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.