E.K. CHANDRASENAN ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 277 · Decided: 17-01-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I 
---< 
E.K. CHANDRASENAN ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA 
JANUARY 17, 1995 
[KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Arts. 136 and 142-Competency to issue suo 
motu rule of enhancement of sentence--Plenary jurisdiction under Art. 
136-Scope of power under Art. 142. 
A 
B 
c 
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 326/ 120-B, 107, 109-Conspiracy 
to supply spurious liquor--Standard of proof-Supply of liquor by a 
jinn-Adulteration of liquor with poisonous material-Motive to derive 
wrongful gain-Concumnt findings-Active participation of four accused-70 
consumers died and 24 lost eye sights pennanently-Award of maximum 
sentence of life imprisonment. 
D 
Section 326-Grievous hurt-Supply of adulterated liquor--24 persons 
having lost their eye sights permanently-Hurt to be regarded as 
grievous-Conviction u/s 326 upheld-Sentence of imprisonment for life. 
E 
Section 328-Supply of adulterated liquor by a jinn-Liquor con-
sume~njuries to consumers-Conviction u/s 328 upheld. 
Kerala Abkari Act;-:-Mixing spirit or water with am1,clc-lllegal. 
10 persons were charge-sheeted for offences punishable u/ss 120-B, F 
302, 272 and 328 r/ws 107 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as 
some sections of the Kerala Abkari Act. The Sessions Judge acquitted 
accused 5 to 8 and 10 of all the charges. Accused 1 to 3 and 9 were also 
acquitted of the offences u/s 302 of the Penal Code as well as under the 
Abkari Act, but were convicted u/ss 120-B and 328 as well as section 107, 
109 and 272 r/ws 34 of the Penal Code. The convicted accused filed appeals G 
and the State challenged the acquittal of all the accused for the offence u/s 
302 and the acquittal of accused 5 to 8 and 10 for all the offences. The High 
Court dismissed the appeals of accused 1 to 3 and 9. The State's appeal 
was partly allowed by convicting accused 1 to 3, 9 and 10 u/s 326 r/ws 120-B, 
107 and 109 and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprison- H 
277 
278 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995] 1 S.C.R. 
A _ment for seven years. The 10th accused was further convicted _u/ss 120-B 
and 328 r/ws 107 and 109 as well as 272 r/ws 34, 107 and 109. For the offence 
u/s 328, rigorous imprisonment for six years and a fine of Rs. ~0,000 and 
for the offence u/s 272 rigorous imprisonment for six ~nths a~d a fine 
of Rs. 1,000 were awarded.· Accused 1 to 3 and 10 had file~ these 'appeals 
with the aid ·of Article 136 of the Constitution of India. This court after 
B hearing appeals felt that the case of enhancement existed, and so, rules of 
enhancement were ordered. 
The presecution case was that 70 persons died after having con-
sumed liquor from the shops and sub-shops which were catered by a firm 
C . and 24 lost eye sights permanently and many other became prey of lesser 
enjuries on the day of Onam; that in this firm initially accused 2 and 10 
were partners, in which eight persons including accused 1 and 3 were 
inducted subsequently; that the liquor licence had been obtained by the 
firm in the name of accused 1 and 2 alongwith wife of the first accused; 
D accused 9, a chemist being an outsider entered into a conspiracy with the 
other accused which ultimately culminated in this tragedy; that though 
accused 10 withdrew from this partnership sometime befm.;e this occur· 
rence, he continued his relations with the firm; that accused\9 dealing in 
varnish and paints purchased 23 barrels of methyl alcohol under fictitious 
name and entered into conspiracy with other appellants for the supply of 
E 23 barrels of methyl alcohol to be mixed with arrack and water for 
distribution to the consumers. 
The appellants alleged that the liquor having been supplied by the 
firm, the accused could not be held guilty of any criminal offence for the 
F misdeed, even if there be any, of the firm inasmuch as there could not be 
any vicarous liability in a case of the present nature; that the mere fact 
that the accusd 1, 2, 3and10 were in active management of the firm (which 
they disputed) would not be sufficient, in the absence of any evidence 
relating to conspiracy, to hold them guilty of the offences in question; that 
G evidence of PWs 38, 39, 42, /278 and 281, on which High Court principally 
relied did not support the· conclusion arrived at by the High Court and 
that these witnesses omitted to name accused-10 when they were ques· 
tioned during investigation; that there was nothing to show about afCUsed 
1 being a conspirator and that the only work entr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.