IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 1083 of 2000()
1. THANKACHAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. EXCISE INSPECTOR, KUNNAMANGALAM
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.ANIL THOMAS(T)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
Dated :27/07/2007
O R D E R
J.B. KOSHY, J.
—————————-
Crl.R.P. NO. 1083 of 2000
—————————-
Dated this the 27th day of July, 2007
Order
Appellant and his wife were charge-sheeted for
offences punishable under section 55 (a) of the Abkari
Act. While conducting a search in the unnumbered house
belonging to the first accused, which was possessed by
both accused together, on 1.10.1996 at about 4.00 p.m.,
37.5 litres of Indian made foreign liquor was found in 77
bottles. There was no licence to possess the same.
Both husband and wife were convicted by the trial court
and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and
to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- each. In appeal, the
appellate court acquitted the first accused. Even though
the house is in the name of the wife, first accused, the
revision petitioner, was actually dealing with the liquor
and he alone was convicted guilty and wife was acquitted.
Revision petitioner challenges the conviction and
sentence as far as he is concerned.
2. First contention raised is that the house
was under construction only. It is true that it was not
numbered, but, evidence would show that the liquor was
Crl.RP.1083/2000
: 2 :
found from the bed room of the house jointly possessed by
accused Nos.1 and 2. They were in joint possession, even
though the property was in the name of first accused.
Secondly, it was contended that samples were taken only
from 4 bottles which was labelled and sealed. Petitioner
had no case that except in four bottles, other bottles
were empty or it contained no liquor. All the 77 bottles
were sealed and labelled identically. Samples taken from
the four bottles show that it was Indian made foreign
liquor having alcoholic content of more than 41% per
volume. Ext.P3 confession statement also shows the
same. In the above circumstances, conviction on the
petitioner needs was no interference. The concurrent
conviction made under section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act is
confirmed. There is no perversity of finding or
illegality. Imposition of fine of Rs.25,000/- is the
minimum fine payable at that time. Imprisonment was also
compulsory. However, considering the fact that offence
was committed more than ten years ago and considering the
amount of fine imposed, I reduce the imprisonment from
six months to one month with right of set off. The
sentence is modified confirming the conviction. The
Crl.RP.1083/2000
: 3 :
imprisonment of six months is reduced to that of one
month with a fine of Rs.25,000/-. If fine is not paid,
he has to undergo default sentence of another one month.
The Crl.R.P. is allowed partly.
J.B.KOSHY
JUDGE
vaa
J.B. KOSHY, J.
————————–
Crl.R.P. No.1083/2000
————————–
Order
Dated:27th July, 2007