IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL A No. 1061 of 2002()
1. B.SUNDARAN, SON OF BELLAN, 48/99,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN (SR.)
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN
Dated :30/05/2007
O R D E R
K.THANKAPPAN, J.
--------------------------------------------
CRL. APPEAL NO. 1061 OF 2002
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of May, 2007
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed against the judgment in Sessions Case No.334 of
1999 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Ad hoc – I), Kasaragod.
By the impugned judgment, the appellant – accused was found guilty under
Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, he was convicted thereunder and
sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and
to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year.
2. The prosecution case against the appellant was that on 21.5.1999
at 6.30 p.m., he was found in possession of 25 packets each containing
100 ml. of Karnatataka made arrack without any license or permit under
the provisions of the Abkari Act. He was arrested at the spot by PW.4,
the Sub Inspector of Police, Badiadka who detected the crime,
investigated the case and laid the final charge. PWs.1 and 3 were the
attesting witnesses to Ext.P1 seizure mahazar and Ext.P2 scene mahazar
CRL.APPEAL NO.1061/2002 2
respectively. PW.2 was the police constable who had accompanied PW.4
at the time of detection of the crime. PWs.2 and 4 deposed that they had
seen the appellant coming along the road with the contraband articles and
that on seeing them he tried to escape from the place. On preparing
Exts.P1 and P2, the contraband articles were seized from the appellant,
samples were taken and sent for chemical analysis. Ext.P5 is the chemical
analysis report which showed that the sample contained alcohol more than
the minimum prescribed for possession by an individual. The court below
relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and found that the prosecution
succeeded in proving the case against the appellant.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as
the learned Public Prosecutor. After considering the entire evidence, this
Court is of the view that the finding entered by the court below is based on
evidence and the impugned judgment requires no interference.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the
appellant was found guilty as per judgment dated 26.10.2002 and he was
committed to prison on that day itself. Appeal was filed on 21.11.2002
and this Court suspended the execution of sentence and ordered to release
the appellant on his executing a bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent
CRL.APPEAL NO.1061/2002 3
sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. As
the appellant was not in a position to execute the bond ordered by this
Court, he was not released on bail. The period of imprisonment ordered
against the appellant including the sentence of imprisonment for default of
payment of fine was four years. The said period of four years was over
on 25.10.2006. Hence, it is not proper for the jail authorities to keep the
appellant in jail after the expiry of the period of imprisonment.
The Crl. Appeal is accordingly dismissed, confirming the conviction
and sentence ordered by the court below. A copy of this judgment shall
be communicated to the Additional Sessions Court (Ad hoc -I), Kasaragod
at the earliest.
(K.THANKAPPAN, JUDGE)
sp/
CRL.APPEAL NO.1061/2002 4
K.THANKAPPAN, J.
CRL.A.NO.1061/2002
JUDGMENT
30TH MAY, 2007