LexP.N. KRISHNA LAL AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus GOVT. OF KERALA AND ANR. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B P.N. KRISHNA LAL AND ORS. ETC. ETC. _v. GOVT. OF KERALA AND ANR. ETC. ETC. NOVEMBER 17, 1994 [K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKA TACHALA, JJ.] Kera/a Abkari Act I of 1077 as amended by Abkari (Amendment) Act 21of1984. Sections 57A and 57B-Adulteration of liquor or intoxicating drug C with noxious substance-Provisions for prosecution of offenders and punishment-Held, valid D , E F Constitution of India Articles 246 (3), 254 (2) Proviso, Seventh Schedule, List II, Entries 8, 64, 65-Legislature of State of Kera/a enacting Abkari (Amendment) Act 21 of 1984-Some provisions incidentally trenching into provisions of Evidence Act, !PC and Cr. P.C-Held provisions of Amendment Act are valid and would prevail over relevant provisions of the Central enactments. Articles 14, 19, 20 (3), 21-Under Abkari (Amendment) Act, all offenders are treated as a Class-There is reasonable nexus between offence created and the case to be dealt with- The procedure, presumption . and burden of proof placed on accused are not unjust, unfair or unreasonable-There is no imidious discrimination on proof of charge, punishment, and prescription of damages-The provisions are not violative of Articles 14, 19, 20 (3) and 21. Articles 19 (/) (g) and 298-Manufacture, possession, trade and business of liquor and intoxicating drug-Held, is privilege of State-It is a regulated trade or business. Criminal law: G Indian Evidence Act 1872/Kerala Abkari Act 1 of 1077 as amended by Abkari (Amendment) Act 21of1984. Sections 105, 106/s, 57A (5)-Provisions regarding presumption and placing burden of proof of certain facts on accused-Held, are not unjust, unfair or unreasonable offending Artic_les 14, 20 (3) or 21 of the H Constitution. 526 P.N. KRISHNA LAL. v. GOVT. OF KERALA 527 Interpretation of Constitution Doctrine of pith and substance-Discussed and applied Doctrine of reading down-Held; not applicable to sub-s. (5) of s. 57 A of Abkari Act I of /077. A The appellants, who were licensees of arrack or Indian made B foreign liquor retail shops or their employees, were charged under sub- sections (1) to (3) of section 57A of Kerala Abkari Act l of J.077, for having mixed or permitted mixing of noxious substance with liquor or for having failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent such mixing or for being in possession of such adulterated liquor with the knowledge that on consumption it was likely to endanger human life or C cause grievous hurt or cause death. The appellants denied the charges. Their case was that they did not mix noxious substance nor did they permit mixing of any ·noxious substance with arrack or Indian made foreign liquor; and since the liquor was supplied to them by the agencies controlled by the State or regulated under the Act, there was no occasion for them to take any reasonable precaution to prevent such D mixing or being in possession of adulterated liquor. They challenged the constitutionality of section 57 A and 57B of the Act before the High Court, which upheld the provisions. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the appeals by special leave. It was contended by the appellants that the State legislature was E not competent to legislate the Abkari (Amendment) Act 21 of 1984 introducing sections 57 A and 57B to the Kerala Abkari Act and the same was void inasmuch as the State Government did not expressly obtain assent of the President of India with reference to any of the provisions of the Evidence Act, the IPC and the Code of Criminal F Procedure; provision of section 57 A of the Act placing the burd,en of proof on the accused was violative of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 20 (3) and 21 of the Constitution; conviction for offences under s. 57 A for mere possession of arrack or intoxicated drug, without proof by the prosecution of the intention of the alleged offender that the liquor was mixed with noxious substance, was contrary to the settled G principles of criminal jurisprudence and per se arbitrary, unfair and unconsionable violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution; the extreme penalty of death under section 57A (1) (ii) without proof of intention or knowledge to cause death, which is an essential pre- requisite ingredient both for culpable homicide or murder defined in sections 299 and 300 IPC, violated the rights gauranteed under Articles H 528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R A 14 and 21 of the Constitution and was grossly disp
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.