IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 CRL.A.No.1893 of 2003 (D) -------------------------------- SC.397/2001 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) FAST TRACK COURT NO.I, MANJERI. .................... APPELLANT: ACCUSED: -------------------------- NEDUNGAD VELAYUDHAN, S/O. NEDUGADAN AYYAPPAN, NEDUNGAD VETTIL, CHENDAPURAYA SIDE, A.R. NAGAR VILLAGE, TIRURANGADI. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.M.RAFIQ RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ Crl. Appeal No.1893 of 2003 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The appellant is the accused in S.C.397/01 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc) Fast Track Court No.I, Manjeri. He was tried for offence punishable under Sections 55(a) and 8(1) of the Abkari Act; was convicted thereunder and was sentenced thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with right of set off. 2. The charge against him was that at about 7.30 a.m. On 13/08/99 he was found in possession of a black can containing about four litres of illicit arrack while he was transporting the same through bye lane near A.R.Nagar Panchayath Mini Stadium at Crl. Appeal No.1893 of 2003 -2- Chandapuraya. 3. When the matter came up for final hearing before me learned counsel for the appellant submitted that she does not want to canvass the correctness of the conviction but that the sentence awarded when compared with the quantity of the contraband involved is highly excessive and that the sentence therefore, be reduced to a reasonable term of imprisonment. 4. Heard the submissions of the Public Prosecutor as well. It cannot be gainsaid that the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment awarded by the court below is highly excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of the offence as possession of a small quantity of arrack and large quantity cannot be treated similarly. Considering the entire circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the term of substantial sentence of Crl. Appeal No.1893 of 2003 -3- imprisonment deserves to be reduced to one year with no modification however, in the fine imposed and the default sentence awarded. 5. In the result, while confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 55 (a) and 8(1) of the Abkari Act, I modify and reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment awarded to him to one year with right of set off maintaining however, the sentence of fine and the default sentence. 6. The appeal is thus, allowed in part modifying and reducing the sentence. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-