{"id":172807,"date":"2007-10-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanthappa-poojary-vs-excise-insepctor-on-26-october-2007"},"modified":"2018-01-25T23:23:57","modified_gmt":"2018-01-25T17:53:57","slug":"kanthappa-poojary-vs-excise-insepctor-on-26-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanthappa-poojary-vs-excise-insepctor-on-26-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"Kanthappa Poojary vs Excise Insepctor on 26 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Kanthappa Poojary vs Excise Insepctor on 26 October, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL A No. 419 of 2003(C)\n\n\n1. KANTHAPPA POOJARY, S\/O. DHUMA POOJARI,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. EXCISE INSEPCTOR,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN\n\n Dated :26\/10\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                        K. THANKAPPAN, J.\n                 ------------------------------------------\n                      CRL.A.NO.419 OF 2003\n                ------------------------------------------\n           Dated this the 26th day of October, 2007.\n\n                              JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      The appellant faced       trial for an offence punishable under<\/p>\n
Section 55(a) read     with Section 55(1)     of the Abkari Act on     a<\/p>\n
complaint filed by the Excise Inspector, Kasaragod Excise range<\/p>\n
alleging that the   appellant was found in possession of 33 liters of<\/p>\n
arrack on 1.10.1998 on the western side of the railway track at<\/p>\n
Beeranthbial at Kasaragod     District against the provisions of the Act<\/p>\n
and the Rules made thereunder. To prove the charge against the<\/p>\n
appellant,   prosecution examined      three witnesses and    relied on<\/p>\n
Exts.P1 to P6.    MOs 1 and       2   were    also produced.       While<\/p>\n
questioning the appellant under Section 313 of the Code, he denied<\/p>\n
all the   incriminating   circumstances    proved against him by the<\/p>\n
prosecution and had stated further that the case was foisted<\/p>\n
against him by the Excise Officials         on the instigation of one<\/p>\n
Krishnapoojari, who is residing near the place of the incident.      On<\/p>\n
the   side of the    appellant,    DW1     was also     examined.    No<\/p>\n
documentary evidence has been proved.         The trial court relying on<\/p>\n
the evidence of Pws 1 and 3, the Preventive Officer and the Excise<\/p>\n
CRL.A.NO.419\/2003                                                   .\n<\/p>\n
                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
Inspector, found the appellant guilty of the offence charged and he<\/p>\n
was convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo R.I for one<\/p>\n
year and to pay a fine of Rs. One lakh      with default sentence of<\/p>\n
payment of fine,    to undergo R.I for a further period of three<\/p>\n
months.     The judgment of the    trial court is  challenged in this<\/p>\n
appeal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.     The counsel appearing for the appellant raised        various<\/p>\n
grounds while challenging the judgment of the trial court. Firstly it<\/p>\n
is submitted that the evidence of Pws 1 and 3 ought not have been<\/p>\n
accepted by the trial court as PW2, the only independent witness<\/p>\n
examined in the case, turned hostile to the prosecution.     Further,<\/p>\n
the   counsel   submits that PW3,     the Excise   Inspector,  while<\/p>\n
detecting   the offence had violated the provisions of the Abkari Act<\/p>\n
and the Excise Manual with regard to      seizure of the contraband,<\/p>\n
taking of the sample, labeling and sealing of the same. Further, the<\/p>\n
counsel submits that as per the principles laid down by this Court in<\/p>\n
the judgments reported in Surendran v. Excise Inspector<\/a> (2004<\/p>\n
(1) KLT 404) and Sudephan @ Aniyan v. State of Kerala<\/a> (2005 (2)<\/p>\n
KLD (Crl) 631), the finding of the trial court that the appellant<\/p>\n
committed an offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari<\/p>\n
CRL.A.NO.419\/2003                                                   .\n<\/p>\n
                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
Act is not    legally tenable.  Lastly,  the    counsel submits that<\/p>\n
punishment awarded against the appellant is excessive and this<\/p>\n
Court may    take   a lenient  view   against the   appellant, if the<\/p>\n
evidence of prosecution is accepted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.   The trial court considered the evidence of Pws 1 and 3, out<\/p>\n
of  whom     PW3 was       the Excise  Inspector, who detected and<\/p>\n
investigated the    crime against the appellant.     The evidence of<\/p>\n
PW3    would   show that    on the   day of the incident namely on<\/p>\n
1.10.1998 when himself     and other excise officials were on excise<\/p>\n
duty, they noted that    the appellant was puring a liquid from a<\/p>\n
cannas with a green mug and when the        excise party approached<\/p>\n
the appellant, they noted that the appellant was carrying       MO1<\/p>\n
cannas which     contained about 33 liters of arrack and he was<\/p>\n
pouring   arrack in MO2     mug  near  the   railway line.    Further<\/p>\n
evidence of   this  witness   would show that    the  appellant  was<\/p>\n
questioned and       arrested at the spot and on preparing Ext.P1<\/p>\n
seizure mahazar, MO1 cannas was seized and two sample bottles<\/p>\n
of arrack were taken for analysis and thereafter, the samples and<\/p>\n
the residue were properly sealed and labeled and got signed by<\/p>\n
two independent witnesses.     Thereafter, a case was registered<\/p>\n
CRL.A.NO.419\/2003                                                  .\n<\/p>\n
                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
against the appellant and as per Ext.P4 property list , the entire<\/p>\n
contraband article and the samples were produced before the<\/p>\n
court on 1.10.1998.    Further evidence of this witness would show<\/p>\n
that, as per Ext.P6 Chemical Analysis Report, it was reported that<\/p>\n
the sample analysed contained 29.36% of ethyl alcohol by volume<\/p>\n
and   the sample    analysed  was   arrack.    The  evidence of this<\/p>\n
witness is also seen supported by PW1, the Preventive Officer, who<\/p>\n
accompanied PW3 along with the other Excise Officials.      Though,<\/p>\n
these  two witnesses were      cross examined, their evidence has<\/p>\n
not been shaken and       suggestions made to these witnesses, that<\/p>\n
the case was foisted against the appellant on the instigation of one<\/p>\n
Krishnapoojari and due to enmity kept by the Excise Officials<\/p>\n
towards the appellant, were denied.     In the above circumstances,<\/p>\n
the trial court believed the evidence of Pws 1 and 3. PW2 though<\/p>\n
was examined to support the prosecution case, he turned hostile<\/p>\n
to the prosecution.   However,    this  witness   had  admitted his<\/p>\n
signature in Ext.P1 mahazar,      Ext.P2    arrest memo and other<\/p>\n
contemporary    documents     prepared by PW3.       In the   above<\/p>\n
circumstances, contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant<\/p>\n
that evidence of Pws 1 and 3 should not have been accepted by<\/p>\n
the court is not tenable. The trial court correctly appreciated the<\/p>\n
CRL.A.NO.419\/2003                                                      .\n<\/p>\n
                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
evidence of these    witnesses    and   the   documentary     evidence<\/p>\n
adduced by the prosecution.    Further evidence of PW3 would show<\/p>\n
that all the material objects were produced before the court for<\/p>\n
verification and   as per Ext.P4 property list, the residue and the<\/p>\n
samples taken for analysis were also produced before the court on<\/p>\n
the same day of the incident. If so, there is no violation of any of<\/p>\n
the provisions of the Abkari Act or the Excise Manual.      Apart from<\/p>\n
this,     evidence of PW3 would show that the sample and the<\/p>\n
residue were duly labeled and sealed          though there is some<\/p>\n
confusion with regard to nature of the seal put by PW3 appears in<\/p>\n
the evidence of PW1.       This is not enough to have any doubt<\/p>\n
regarding    evidence of these witnesses.     The next question to be<\/p>\n
considered is   whether the trial court is justified in finding that the<\/p>\n
appellant had committed an offence under Section 55(a) read with<\/p>\n
Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act. As per the principles laid down by<\/p>\n
this Court in Sudephan and Surendrans’ cases (cited supra), to<\/p>\n
attract   an offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act,          the<\/p>\n
prosecution should prove that possession of contraband article is in<\/p>\n
connection with    any import,    transport or    transit of the same.<\/p>\n
Though the prosecution has alleged that the appellant was found<\/p>\n
in possession of MO1 can with 33 liters of arrack, there is no<\/p>\n
CRL.A.NO.419\/2003                                                    .\n<\/p>\n
                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
evidence to show that the said possession was in connection with<\/p>\n
any import, transport or transit of the same.     The only allegation<\/p>\n
against the appellant by the prosecution was that he kept the<\/p>\n
same    for  sale.   But,   there is no   evidence   to show that the<\/p>\n
appellant had     sold the prohibited liquor to anybody.      In the<\/p>\n
above circumstances, finding of the trial court that the appellant<\/p>\n
had committed an offence under Section 55(a) read with Section<\/p>\n
55(i)  of the Abkari Act is not     sustainable  in law   and  hence,<\/p>\n
conviction and sentence      awarded    against the appellant under<\/p>\n
that section are hereby       set aside. Accordingly, the appellant is<\/p>\n
acquitted   of the offence punishable under Section 55 (a) read with<\/p>\n
Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.    The next question to be considered is that as the trial court<\/p>\n
had accepted the     evidence of Pws    1 and    3 to prove that the<\/p>\n
appellant   was    found in possession of     33 liters of  arrack on<\/p>\n
1.10.1998,    what would be the offence be charged against the<\/p>\n
appellant? Arrack is a prohibited liquor in the State as per Section 8<\/p>\n
of the Abkari Act. Arrack is also defined under Section 3(6A) of the<\/p>\n
Abkari Act, which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
CRL.A.NO.419\/2003                                                    .\n<\/p>\n
                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
        “Arrack” means any potable liquor other than Toddy,
\n        Beer, Spirits    of Wine, Wine, Indian made spirit,
\n        foreign liquor      and     any medicinal preparation
\n        containing    alcohol manufactured     according to  a
\n        formula prescribed in a pharmacopoeia approved by
\n        the Government of India or the Government of Kerala,
\n        or manufactured according to a formula approved
\n        by the Government of Kerala in respect of patent and
\n        proprietary preparations or approved as a bonafide
\n        medicinal preparation      by the    Expert Committee
\n        appointed under Section 68 A of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
      As per Section 8 of the Abkari Act, no person shall manufacture,<\/p>\n
import   export, transport or     transit  [without   permit  transit]<\/p>\n
possess, store, distribute, bottle or sell arrack in any form.    So,<\/p>\n
there is a clear prohibition of possession of arrack in any form and<\/p>\n
such possession, sale, distribution, bottling, storing, exporting,<\/p>\n
importing or even manufacturing of such arrack is punishable under<\/p>\n
Section 8(2) of the Act. Hence, the appellant is fond guilty under<\/p>\n
Section 8(1) read with 8(2) of the Abkari Act.   The next question to<\/p>\n
be   considered is with regard to    the   punishment    be  awarded<\/p>\n
against the appellant. The trial court had found the appellant<\/p>\n
guilty under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and sentenced him to<\/p>\n
undergo R.I for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.One lakh. No<\/p>\n
special reason has been stated by the trial court for imposing such<\/p>\n
a penalty against the appellant.     The State Government wants to<\/p>\n
CRL.A.NO.419\/2003                                                    .\n<\/p>\n
                                  8<\/span><\/p>\n
have    complete prohibition of manufacturing, selling etc of arrack<\/p>\n
with a view to free the State from untoward incidents      like liquor<\/p>\n
tragedy etc. In the above circumstances, if any person is found in<\/p>\n
possession,    selling, manufacturing, bottling or storing or arrack<\/p>\n
shall be properly punished. However, as the incident took place<\/p>\n
about nine years back and the State had not filed any appeal for<\/p>\n
enhancement of the punishment, this Court is of the view that R.I for<\/p>\n
one year imposed by the trial court and the fine of Rs.One lakh will<\/p>\n
be the sufficient punishment for the appellant.<\/p>\n
      Accordingly, the appellant is found guilty under Section 8(1)<\/p>\n
read with Section 8 (2) of the Abkari Act       and he is   convicted<\/p>\n
thereunder and sentenced to undergo R.I for one year and a fine<\/p>\n
of Rs. One lakh with default sentence of payment of fine,           to<\/p>\n
undergo R.I for a further period of three months.       The appellant<\/p>\n
is entitled for the benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure.   Except the above alteration of conviction, in all other<\/p>\n
respects, the appeal stands dismissed.      The bail bond executed by<\/p>\n
the appellant shall stand cancelled.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                         K. THANKAPPAN, JUDGE.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n  cl\n\nCRL.A.NO.419\/2003                            .\n                     9<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n                       K. THANKAPPAN, J.\n\n\n\n\n                       CRL.A.NO.419 OF 2003\n\n\n\n\n                       JUDGMENT\n\n\n\n\n                       26th  October, 2007.\n\nCRL.A.NO.419\/2003          .\n                     10<\/span>\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Kanthappa Poojary vs Excise Insepctor on 26 October, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL A No. 419 of 2003(C) 1. KANTHAPPA POOJARY, S\/O. DHUMA POOJARI, … Petitioner Vs 1. EXCISE INSEPCTOR, … Respondent 2. STATE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN For Respondent : No Appearance The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-172807","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKanthappa Poojary vs Excise Insepctor on 26 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanthappa-poojary-vs-excise-insepctor-on-26-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kanthappa Poojary vs Excise Insepctor on 26 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanthappa-poojary-vs-excise-insepctor-on-26-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-25T17:53:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanthappa-poojary-vs-excise-insepctor-on-26-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanthappa-poojary-vs-excise-insepctor-on-26-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kanthappa Poojary vs Excise Insepctor on 26 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-25T17:53:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanthappa-poojary-vs-excise-insepctor-on-26-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1682,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanthappa-poojary-vs-excise-insepctor-on-26-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanthappa-poojary-vs-excise-insepctor-on-26-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanthappa-poojary-vs-excise-insepctor-on-26-october-2007\",\"name\":\"Kanthappa Poojary vs Excise Insepctor on 26 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-25T17:53:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanthappa-poojary-vs-excise-insepctor-on-26-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanthappa-poojary-vs-excise-insepctor-on-26-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanthappa-poojary-vs-excise-insepctor-on-26-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kanthappa Poojary vs Excise Insepctor on 26 October, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kanthappa Poojary vs Excise Insepctor on 26 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanthappa-poojary-vs-excise-insepctor-on-26-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kanthappa Poojary vs Excise Insepctor on 26 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanthappa-poojary-vs-excise-insepctor-on-26-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-25T17:53:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanthappa-poojary-vs-excise-insepctor-on-26-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanthappa-poojary-vs-excise-insepctor-on-26-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kanthappa Poojary vs Excise Insepctor on 26 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-25T17:53:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanthappa-poojary-vs-excise-insepctor-on-26-october-2007"},"wordCount":1682,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanthappa-poojary-vs-excise-insepctor-on-26-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanthappa-poojary-vs-excise-insepctor-on-26-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanthappa-poojary-vs-excise-insepctor-on-26-october-2007","name":"Kanthappa Poojary vs Excise Insepctor on 26 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-25T17:53:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanthappa-poojary-vs-excise-insepctor-on-26-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanthappa-poojary-vs-excise-insepctor-on-26-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanthappa-poojary-vs-excise-insepctor-on-26-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kanthappa Poojary vs Excise Insepctor on 26 October, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172807","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=172807"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172807\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=172807"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=172807"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=172807"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}