IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 CRL.A.No. 691 of 2003() ------------------------------------ SC.4/2000 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC– I ), PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANT(S): ACCUSED --------------------- MRS. KUNJAMMA W/O. RAMKRISHNAN, NIRAVEL VEEDU, PRAKKNAM MURI, CHENNIRKARA VILLAGE. BY ADVS.MR.V.V.RAJA MR.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- CRL.A.NO.691 OF 2003 ------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT This is an appeal preferred against the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Pathanamthitta in S.C.No.4/2000. The accused was found guilty under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and therefore, sentenced to undergo R.I for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. One lakh and in default of which, she was directed to undergo S.I for two months more. It is against that decision, the accused has come up in appeal. 2. The points that arise for determination in the appeal are (1) whether there are sufficient grounds to hold that the accused has committed the crime under Section 55(a), (2) whether the materials available would attract other sections and if so, under what section and (3) In case of guilt, whether the punishment awarded is excessive. 3. Points 1 to 3: It is the case of the prosecution that on 22.12.1998 when 2 CRL.A.NO.691/2003. PW4 and his party were on patrol duty, they got a reliable information that the accused was selling illicit arrack in her house and therefore, they proceeded to the place and found the accused standing in the courtyard of her house with a Can and a glass. It is also the case of the prosecution that they were able to see two other persons and on seeing the police, they ran way and so, the police apprehended the accused, seized the liquor and by taste and smell found it to be illicit arrack and thereafter took 180 ml of sample out of it, sealed it and the balance liquor was sealed in the very same Can and was produced before the court. Later, the sample liquid was sent for chemical analysis which revealed that it contained 25.51% of ethyl alcohol by volume. On examination of the evidence available, the court found the accused guilty under Section 55(a) and convicted her thereunder. 4. The learned young counsel for the appellant strongly contends before me that the materials available are not sufficient to connect the accused with the crime and that the case attempted to be developed and established by the 3 CRL.A.NO.691/2003. prosecution is inconsistent and therefore, the accused is to be acquitted. The learned counsel had taken me through the evidence of all the witnesses and documents. PWs 3 and 4 are two official witnesses. PW4 is the detecting officer. He had deposed before the court that on 22.12.1998 they got an information and proceeded to the house of the accused and before they reached the place, they saw two persons running away and thereafter when they reached the place, they found the accused standing in the courtyard with a plastic can and a glass which, on examination revealed that it was illicit liquor. PW3, the other police official, who was also with PW4, had also deposed and in the cross examination, it has been brought out that the accused was present in front of the house. It is well known principle that if a house is to be searched, legal formalities are to be complied with. But in this case, according to the prosecution, there was no search of the house as the accused was found in possession of the illicit liquor in the courtyard of the house. The learned counsel had invited my attention to the seizure mahazer, where on the 4 CRL.A.NO.691/2003. first part, what was written is regarding what had transpired and the second part is the seizure mahazer. It is true that the descriptive information given by the police in seizure mahazer regarding the incident cannot form the basis for the purpose of conviction. But the seizure mahazer itself reveals about the recovery, sampling, sealing and apprehension of the accused. So, the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 are consistent so far as it relates to the question of presence of the accused in the courtyard with a Can and a glass and the illicit arrack was seized from her. The evidence of PWs 3 and 4 can be believed as they are trustworthy. It is the regular practice in abkari cases that independent witnesses are turning hostile for the reasons best known to them. It was under such circumstance, the courts were forced to consider the question whether the evidence of the official witnesses can be looked into or accepted for the purpose of proving the guilt of the accused. The courts elaborately considered the matter and held that just because they are official witnesses, they cannot be termed as interested or partisan witnesses but the only 5 CRL.A.NO.691/2003. caution is that their evidence has to be meticulously scanned and scrutinized and if it is found that it is acceptable, it can form the basis for conviction. On material points, the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 are consistent and acceptable. There is nothing before the court to show that they have no axe to grind against the accused. So, the evidence of Pws 3 and 4 can be looked into for the purpose of the case. So far as the sampling and selling are concerned, it is done in order and the material objects had been produced before the court in a sealed condition on 24.12.1998 itself which had been forwarded to the chemical analyst and the chemical analyst found that the samples were intact and it tallied with the sample seal provided. The chemical analyst also found that it contained 25.51% by volume of ethyl alcohol. So, the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 coupled with the chemical analyst's report would establish that the accused was found in possession of illicit arrack. 5. The learned counsel would contend that the offence under Section 55(a) will not lie. There is some force in the said 6 CRL.A.NO.691/2003. contention. Section 55(a) deals with export, import, transport,possession and since none of these ingredients are there in this case, it is argued that it will not be attracted. On the contra, the Prosecutor would submit that the word possession is there and therefore that will attract section 55 (a). This subject came up for decision in a ruling reported in Mohanan v. State of Kerala (2007(1) KLT 845) and a Division Bench of this Court held that Section 55(a) deals with only illegal import, export or transport, possession etc. on such import or export. This Court further held that Section 55(a) is applicable only when persons illegally imports or transport liquor or in possession of liquor while illegally importing. So, unless the possession is coupled with illegal importing, the mere possession would not constitute an offence under Section 55(a) is the dictum laid down in the above said decision. Therefore, I find that the learned counsel's contention that Section 55(a) will not be attracted has to be accepted. Whether by that alone, the accused has to be acquitted is the next question. There are other sections in this Abkari Act. As 7 CRL.A.NO.691/2003. stated by me earlier, the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 and the chemical analyst's report point out to the fact that it was illicit arrack that was seized. When it is so, I find that the offence can be squarely brought under Section 8 of the Abkari Act. Under Section 8(1), no person shall manufacture, import, export, transport without permit transit possess, store, distribute, bottle or sell arrack in any form. So, there is prohibition of even possession under Section 8(1) of the Act. When such an offence is committed, Section 8(2) prescribes punishment which may extend to ten years and with fine which shall not be less than rupees One lakh. It has to be stated that punishment provided under Sections 55(a), 58 and 8(2) of the Abkari Act are all equal in the sense up to 10 years and Rs. One lakh. Since, I am also convinced and the accused was also consciously aware of the fact and that she was defending the case wherein she was found to be in possession of illicit arrack. There is no further point in remanding the case to file. The ingredients are sufficient to prove the case against the accused. Therefore, I find her guilty under Section 8(2) of the 8 CRL.A.NO.691/2003. Abkari Act and convict her thereunder. 6. Lastly, turning to the question of sentence. The accused was found in possession of about 4 liters of arrack. She is a lady. Even at the time of the offence she is aged 52. In Section 313 statement, she has stated that she had her ailing husband and a son, who is unwell and therefore, everybody depends on her presence in the house. It is true that possession or sale of illicit arrack is a social menace. We find in many cases that people who are in the lower status of the society are involved in this type of illegal sale or possession of illicit arrack. So, in order to have a social balance, potentiality of the accused also has to be taken into consideration. Being a poor old lady with a family to be looked after, I feel some leniency can be shown in this case by reducing the imprisonment portion of six months to three months of S.I and default sentence of one month S.I, on non- payment of the fine. 7. In the result, the criminal appeal is disposed of as follows: 9 CRL.A.NO.691/2003. (1). It is found that the accused is not guilty under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act but is found guilty under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act and convicted thereunder. (2). She is sentenced to undergo S.I for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. One lakh and in default of which, she shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month. She is entitled to set off as contemplated under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The lower court shall execute the sentence. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl 10 CRL.A.NO.691/2003. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- CRL.A.NO.691 OF 2003 ------------------------------ 1st day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT 11 CRL.A.NO.691/2003.