RAJAMANI versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2013] 4 S.C.R. 187 · Decided: 06-03-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 4 S.C.R. 187 
RAJAMANI 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 397 of 2013) 
MARCH· 06, 2013 
[T.S. THAKUR. AND SUDHANSU 
JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Kera/a Abkari Act (1 of 1077) - s.55(a) - Conviction 
under - For illegal trade in liquor - Trial court sentenced the C 
accused to seven years imprisonment and imposed fine of 
Rs. 1 lakh with default clause - High Court reduced the 
sentence to five years imprisonment and enhanced the 
amount of fine to Rs. 2 /akhs - Notice by Supreme Court 
limited on. the question of sentence - Held: In view of the D 
circumstances of the case that the accused was only a driver 
of the lorry in which the goods were tr.ansported, and the 
investigating agency did not make any endeavour to expose 
the racketeers, the sentence of the accused is reduced to three 
years imprisonment and fine is reduced to Rs. 1 lakh. 
E 
Appellant-a~cused, a driver of a lorry was caught 
carrying contraband and was prosecuted u/s.55 of Kerala 
Abkari Act (1 of 1077). Trial court convicted the accused 
and sentenced him to imprisonment of seven years and 
imposed fine of Rs.1 lakh with default clause. High Court 
F 
affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to five 
years imprisonment and enhanced the fine to Rs.2 lakhs 
with default clause. In appeal, this Court issued notice 
limited to the question of sentence. 
G 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The appellant was a driver by profession. 
The quantity of contraband was thus large. That could 
187 
H 
188 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 4 S.C.R. 
A and ought to be one of the factors to be taken into 
consideration while determining the quantum of sentence 
awarded to him. What was equally importani is whether 
the appellant was the owner of the contraband or had any 
financial interest in its possession or transportation. 
s There is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant 
had any such interest. The Investigating Officer ought to 
have made an endeavour to identify those behind the 
purchase and transport of the contraband. He should 
have looked for the consignor and consignee both. Arrest 
c and prosecution of the driver of the lorry in which the 
goods were being carried can hardly be enough to weed 
out illegal trade in liquor. So long as the kingpins are not 
identified and brought to book, the purpose sought to be 
served by the law prescribing a deterrent punishment 
0 cannot be achieved. In matters of illegal trade whether in 
liquor, drugs or other contrabands, the smaller fish only 
gets caught while the sharks who flourish in such trade 
often go scot free. The arrest and prosecution of the 
carriers of contrabands is in that view mere lip service to 
E the avowed purpose underlying the legislation. [Para 6] 
[190-D-H] 
2.ln the totality of the circumstances and the facts of 
the cases, thet sentence awarded to the appellant is 
reduced from five years to three years rigorous 
F imprisonment and a fine of rupees one lakh. In default of 
payment of fine the appellant shall suffer imprisonment 
for a further period of one year. [Para 7] [191-8-C] 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 397 of 2013. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 15.03.2012 of the High 
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl. A. No. 1345 of 2003. 
P.V. Dinesh, Bineesh for the Appellant. 
H 
Jogy Scaria, K.K. Sudhesh for the Respondent. 
RAJAMANI v. STATE OF KERALA 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted. 
189 
A 
2. The appellant was prosecuted for an offence punishable 
under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act (1 of 1077). He 
B 
was found guilty by the Trial Court and sentenced to undergo 
imprisonment for a period· of seven years besides a fine of 
rupees one lakh. In default of payment a further sentence of 
one year simple imprisonment was also awarded. The co-
accused in the case was, however, acquitted by the Trial Court. 
3. Aggrieved by the conviction and the sentence awarded 
to him, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.1345 of 
2003 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The High 
Court reappraised the evidence on record and came to the 
conclusion that the charge framed against the appellant had 
been rightly held to be proved by the Trial Court. The conviction 
recorded against the appellant was accordingly affirmed but 
the sentence awarded to him reduced from seven years to five 
years but with.an enhanced fine of rupees two lakhs in default 
of payme

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.