STATE REP. BY TAHSILDAR-CUM-SALES OFFICER versus M. JANKIRAMAN & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 1076 · Decided: 09-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 1 S.C.R. 1076 
A 
STATE REP. BY TAHSILDAR-CUM-SALES OFFICER 
v. 
M. JANKIRAMAN & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 557-558 of 2002) 
FEBRUARY 9, 2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGUL Y, JJ.] 
+--. 
Pondicherry Excise Act, 1970 - ss. 31, 33 and 37(a) -
c Conviction by trial court and appellate court - Acquittal in 
revision - On appeal, held: Since the acquittal order was 
unreasoned, matter remitted to High Court. 
Respondents-accused were convicted u/ss. 31, 33 
D and 37 (a) and of Pondicherry Excise Act, 1970 by trial 
court and appellate court. In revision, High Court 
.,.-
acquitted them. Hence the present appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeals and remitting the matter 
to High Court, the Court 
E 
HELD: The evidence of the witnesses and the 
conclusions of the trial Court and the first appellate court 
have not been referred to at all in the judgment of the High 
Court. When two courts had found the accused persons 
F guilty, the High Court has not even indicated as to how 
the conclusions of the trial court and the appellate court 
were without any basis or not sustainable. The manner 
of disposal of the revision petitions leaves much to be 
desired. [Para 5) [1079-D-G] 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 557-558 of 2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.2001 of the High .,.
Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. R.C. Nos. 249 and 278 
H 
1076 
STATE REP. BY TAHSILDAR-CUM-SALES OFFICER v. 
1077 
M. JANKIRAMAN & ANR. 
of 1998. 
A 
V. Kanakaraj, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle, Prabu Rama 
Subramanian and S. Thananjayan for the Appellant. 
P. Radha Rani and P. Vijay Kumar (for C.S.N. Mohan Rao) 
B 
for the Respondents. 
Th Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
.. 
\-
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Challenge in these appeals 
is to the judgment of acquittal recorded by a learned Single 
Judge of the Madras High Court. The respondents were c 
accused in C.C.No.195 of 1991 on the file of Chief Judicial 
Magistrate, Pondicherry. Both of them were convicted for 
offences punishable under Sections 31, 33, 37(a) and 38(1) of 
Pondicherry Excise Act. 1970 (in short the 'Act') and each of D 
them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six 
-..; 
months under each head and the sentences were ordered to 
run concurrently and fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation 
was imposed. Appeals were preferred by the accused persons 
and learned llnd Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry 
E 
affirmed the conviction so far as offence punishable under 
Sections 31, 33 and 37(a) are concerned. But the sentences 
were modified. The accused persons filed a Criminal Revision 
petitions before the Madras High Court. 
' 
)< 
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
F 
On 28.4.1990 at 7.30 a.m. Tahsildar (Excise) Visanathan 
(PW-5) alongwith his officials and police party went on a routine 
raid and they received information that some people were 
indulging in manufacturing illicit Indian Made Foreign Liquor G 
(IMPL) at Aranganoor. They reached Aranganoor and when they 
went near the unfinished house of accused No.1 Janakiraman, 
-)( 
they noticed the smell of arrack coming from that house. On 
seeing them, a person who was standing there, ran away and 
they found a lady there. On enquiry, they came to know that she 
H 
was Vasantha @ Kumari, the daughter-in-law of Janakiraman 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1078 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 1 S.C.R. 
and the person who ran away from there, was accused No.2 
Settu another son of Janakiraman and the house belonged to 
accused No.1. Janakiraman. Excise Officer, Viswanathan 
(P.W.5) found a room in the house locked. When enquired, 
Vasantha told them that the key was with accused No.2 who 
ran away from there. Thereupon, the lock was broken and they 
went inside and saw 2000 bottles containing illicit liquor 
(manufactured brandy) and they also found apparatus and other 
items for manufacturing illicit brandy alongwith empty bottles. 
Viswanathan (P.W.5) seized the materials under cover of 
Mahazar in the presence of Vasa nth a and Assistant Inspector. 
P.W registered a case in Crime No.4 of 1990 under Sections 
31, 33, 37(a) and 38(1) of the Act and sent the samples for 
chemical analysis. He examined the witnesses and made the 
final report. The trial Court and the first Appellate Court found 
the accused persons guilty. 
The High Court by the impugned order allowed the 
Revision Petitions. 
3. In support of the appeals, learned counse
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.