NHALIYAM MAKKIL RAVEENDRAN versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2008] 7 S.C.R. 709 · Decided: 05-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 7 S.C.R. 709 
--
-I 
NHALIYAM MAKKIL RAVEENDRAN 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 801 of 2008) 
MAY 5, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
Kera/a Abkari Act - ss. 55 (a) - Accused found in 
possession of arrack - Trial court convicting u/s 55 (a) and 
sentencing to 3 years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1 /akh -
c 
Appellate court upholding conviction, but reducing the 
sentence to 1 year imprisonment - High Court upholding the 
order - On appeal, held : Accused was liable to be punished 
under s. 55 (a) - In the facts of the case sentence is reduced 
to 9 months imprisonment - However, punishment of fine of D 
Rs. 1 lakh maintained. 
-· 
According to the prosecution, the accused was 
found in possession of 4 litres of arrack made in 
Karnataka. Five witnesses were examined to further the 
prosecution version. Trial Court found him guilty of E 
' 
offence punishable u/s 55 (a) of Kerala Abkari Act, 1077 
and sentenced him to 3 years simple imprisonment and 
to fine of Rs. 1 lakh with default stipulation. Appellate court 
upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to one 
year. High Court, in revision, did not interfere with the 
F 
order. Hence the present appeal. 
'O 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Present case is one which is covered by 
Section 55(a) of Kera la Abkari Act, 1077. Two types of G 
punishments are provided in Section 55. One is relatable 
to offence other than the offence falling under clause (d) 
or clause (e) where the imprisonment is extended to 10 
years and with fine which shall not be less than rupees 
709 
H 
710 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 7 S.C.R. 
one lakh. Offence falling under clause (d) and (e) carry 
,_ -
/~. 
lesser term of sentence which may extend to one year or 
alternatively with fine which may extend to rupees ten 
thousand or with both. There is no minimum sentence 
provided but the outer limit of the punishment is 10 years. 
B At the same time imposition of fine of rupees one lakh is 
statutorily provided without any exception. However, in 
the peculiar facts of the case reduction of the sentence 
to 9 months is directed. The amount of fine which is 
stated to have been deposited is maintained. [Paras 8, 9 
c and 1 O] [713-C, D, E, F] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
Appeal No. 801 of 2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4. 7.2007 of the High 
D Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, in Criminal Rev. Pet. No. 2424 of 
2007. 
Shabu Sreedharan, P.A. Noor Muhamed and Rameshwar 
t 
Prasad Goyal for the Appellant. 
: 
E 
R. Sathish for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
~ 
• 
,___
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
', 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of learned 
F Single Judge of the Kerala High Court dismissing the Revision 
Petition filed by the appellant. On the allegation that on 13.8.1999 
the accused was found to be in possession of 4 litres of arrack 
made in Karnataka in 40 packets, each containing 100 ml. It 
was held that the accused was guilty of offence punishable under 
G Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1077. 
3. Law was set into motion as the prosecution was of the 
;,,,
view that the accused was in possession of liquor in 
I. 
contravention of the provisions of the Act. Five witnesses were 
examined to further the prosecution version. Accused pleaded 
H innocence. Learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, 
NHALIYAM MAKKIL RAVEENDRAN v. STATE OF 
KERALA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
711 
Thalassery found the appellant guilty for commission of offence A 
and sentenced him to under simple imprisonment for three years 
and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with default stipulation. 
An appeal was preferred before the Sessions Court, Thalassery 
which was dismissed. In the revision, the basic contention was 
that the alleged offence was committed on 13.8.1999 the seized 
B 
property was produced in the Court on 16.8.1999. There was 
three days delay which was fatal. Before the High Court it was 
alternatively submitted that the sentence as imposed was high. 
The High Court noted that the offence was detected on 13.8.1999 
by PW-4, a Sub-Inspector of Police, lritty and his police party c 
while they were on patrol duty. While they reached near the bus 
stop the accused appellant was seen alighting from a bus with 
cloth bag in his hand. Getting suspicious PW-4 tried to stop 
him. The accused hurriedly crossed the road and ran away. He 
was chased and apprehended
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.