LexRAVEENDRAN K & ANR, versus EXCISE INSPECTOR VADAKARA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 972 A RAVEENDRAN K & ANR, v. ~ EXCISE INSPECTOR VADAKARA & ANR. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1263 of 2001) OCTOBER 21, 2008 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ] Kera/a Abkari Act, 1967: -~~- c Ss, 57A(1)(iii) and (5) - Sale of illicit liquor- HELD: Bur- den of proof is on the accused - Even if the role of Distillery was in question, that would not absolve the accused of culpa- bility under Act- Conviction and sentence upheld - Evidence. D The appellants were convicted and sentenced by the trial court u/s 57 A(iii) of the Kera la Abkari Act, 1967 to rig- orous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10 1,000/-. The appellate court as also the High Court in re- t- vision petition upheld the order of the trial court. ~ E In the instant appeals, filed by the accused, it was contended for the appellants that the liquor in question was procured from a particular distillery against which cases were instituted and it was found that role of the ,said distillery i.n supply of illicit liquor could not be ruled F out; and that it was not the case of the prosecution that the accused licencee had got the liquor in question from any other source. The stand of the State was that, bur- f. den of proof iri terms of s.57-A was on the accused. Dismissing the appeals, the Court G HELD: The burden of proof is on the licensee as is evident from sub Section (5) of Section 57 A of the Kera la Abkari Act, 1967. Even if it is accepted that the distillery .f. had any role to play, that does not absolve the appellants I H 972 -+ ,, - f RAVEENDRAN K & ANR, v. EXCISE INSPECTOR 973 VADAKARA & ANR. from culpability under the Act. It is to be noted that while A the appellants were selling the liquor in bottle they got it from the said distillery admittedly in barrels. Therefore, the stand of the appellants that the liquor was sold in the same form is no,t correct. In view of the factual position, the appeal so far as appellant No. 1 in each case is con- s cerned, stands dismissed. The appeal stands abated as regards appellant No. 2 i.e. the licensee in each case be- cause of his death. [para 5-6) (979-A, 8, C) CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1263 of 2001 C From the final Judgment and Order dated 30.5.2001 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Rev. Pet. No. 558 of 2000 (8) WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 1264-1265 and 1266 of 2001 K. Rajeev for the Appellants. G. Prakash for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in these appeals D E is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court. Before the High Court Criminal Revision Petitions were filed questioning correctness of the judgment passed by learned F Sessions Judge Kozhikode upholding the conviction of the re- vision petitioners for offence punishable under 'section 57 A (iii) of the Abkari Act, 1967, described as (Act 1 of 1077) because the same was passed by the then Maharaja of Cochin on the 5th day of August, 1902 corresponding to the 31st day of G Karkadagom 1077 and was extended to the whole of Kera la as per Act 10 of 1967. Each was convicted by learned Assis- tant Sessions Judge, Vadakara an_d sentenced to rigorous im- prisonment for one year and to pay a fine ofRs.10,000/- each with default stipulation. Lakshmanan N., the revisional petitioner H 974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. A No. 2 in two of the revision petitions before the High Court and ,._ the petitioner in one of the petitions was the licensee of arrack t- shops bearing Nos. 1 to 16 of Vadakara Range. Preventive officer PW 1 attached to the Vadakara Excise Range along with Excise Guards inspected the god owns, and arrack shops .. B of the licensee on 19.12.1988 and took samples for chemical ~ examination. The samples were taken from the stocks of 6520 litres of arrack kept in 65 barrels, in the presence of the appel- lant No. 1. One of the samples collected from the godown was ')-- given to the licensee on proper acknowledgement. The sample c of chemical examination as per the regional Chemical Exami,. nation Laboratory, Kozhikode, revealed the presence of Methyle alcohol, a noxious substance, the consumption of which is inju- rious to health. On the same day at another godown sample was collected where appellant Mohanan in Criminal Appeal No. D 1265 of 2001 was the manager. Duri
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.