Supreme Court of India
NHALIYAM MAKKIL RAVEENDRANversusSTATE OF KERALA
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 580
- Decided
- 5 May 2008
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The appellant is punishable under section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act; the fine of Rs 1 lakh is mandatory, and the term of imprisonment is reduced to nine months.
Summary
The appellant was caught on 13 August 1999 in possession of four litres of arrack, packaged in forty 100‑ml packets, while attempting to flee from police in Kerala. He was convicted by the trial court under section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1077 and sentenced to three years' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,00,000, with the conviction upheld by the Sessions Court and the High Court, the latter reducing the imprisonment to one year. The appellant challenged the conviction and the severity of the sentence before this Court, contending that the evidence did not support a conviction and that the sentence was excessive. The Court examined the language of section 55(a), which prescribes imprisonment up to ten years and a mandatory fine of not less than Rs 1 lakh for offences other than those under clauses (d) or (e), and noted that the statute does not prescribe a minimum term of imprisonment. Considering the facts, the Court held that the conviction was proper, the fine of Rs 1 lakh must be imposed, but the term of imprisonment could be reduced to nine months. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of with the sentence reduced to nine months' imprisonment while the fine remained unchanged.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant's conduct falls within the ambit of section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1077.
- What is the appropriate quantum of imprisonment and fine under section 55(a) for the offence committed.
- Whether the statutory fine of Rs 1 lakh is mandatory even when the term of imprisonment is reduced.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Kerala Abkari Actsection 55illegal liquor possessionimprisonmentfinesentencingcriminal appealstatutory mandatory fine
Judgment
[2008] 7 S.C.R. 709
-- -I
NHALIYAM MAKKIL RAVEENDRAN
v.
A
STATE OF KERALA
(Criminal Appeal No. 801 of 2008)
MAY 5, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.)
Kera/a Abkari Act - ss. 55 (a) - Accused found in
possession of arrack - Trial court convicting u/s 55 (a) and
sentencing to 3 years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1 /akh - c
Appellate court upholding conviction, but reducing the
sentence to 1 year imprisonment - High Court upholding the
order - On appeal, held : Accused was liable to be punished
under s. 55 (a) - In the facts of the case sentence is reduced
to 9 months imprisonment - However, punishment of fine of
D
Rs. 1 lakh maintained.
-· According to the prosecution, the accused was
found in possession of 4 litres of arrack made in
Karnataka. Five witnesses were examined to further the
prosecution version. Trial Court found him guilty of E
' offence punishable u/s 55 (a) of Kerala Abkari Act, 1077
and sentenced him to 3 years simple imprisonment and
to fine of Rs. 1 lakh with default stipulation. Appellate court
upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to one
year. High Court, in revision, did not interfere with the F
order. Hence the present appeal.
'O
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: Present case is one which is covered by
Section 55(a) of Kera la Abkari Act, 1077. Two types of G
punishments are provided in Section 55. One is relatable
to offence other than the offence falling under clause (d)
or clause (e) where the imprisonment is extended to 10
years and with fine which shall not be less than rupees
709 H
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.
one lakh. Offence falling under clause (d) and (e) carry
/~.
lesser term of sentence which may extend to one year or
,_
-
alternatively with fine which may extend to rupees ten
thousand or with both. There is no minimum sentence
provided but the outer limit of the punishment is 10 years.
B At the same time imposition of fine of rupees one lakh is
statutorily provided without any exception. However, in
the peculiar facts of the case reduction of the sentence
to 9 months is directed. The amount of fine which is
stated to have been deposited is maintained. [Paras 8, 9
c and 1O] [713-C, D, E, F]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal No. 801 of 2002.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4. 7.2007 of the High
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, in Criminal Rev. Pet. No. 2424 of
D
2007.
Shabu Sreedharan, P.A. Noor Muhamed and Rameshwar t
Prasad Goyal for the Appellant.
:
R. Sathish for the Respondent.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ~
•
,___
',
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of learned
F Single Judge of the Kerala High Court dismissing the Revision
Petition filed by the appellant. On the allegation that on 13.8.1999
the accused was found to be in possession of 4 litres of arrack
made in Karnataka in 40 packets, each containing 100 ml. It
was held that the accused was guilty of offence punishable under
G Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1077.
3. Law was set into motion as the prosecution was of the ;,,,
view that the accused was in possession of liquor in I.
contravention of the provisions of the Act. Five witnesses were
examined to further the prosecution version. Accused pleaded
H innocence. Learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,
NHALIYAM MAKKIL RAVEENDRAN v. STATE OF 711
KERALA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
Thalassery found the appellant guilty for commission of offence A
and sentenced him to under simple imprisonment for three years
and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with default stipulation.
An appeal was preferred before the Sessions Court, Thalassery
which was dismissed. In the revision, the basic contention was
that the alleged offence was committed on 13.8.1999 the seized B
property was produced in the Court on 16.8.1999. There was
three days delay which was fatal. Before the High Court it was
alternatively submitted that the sentence as imposed was high.
The High Court noted that the offence was detected on 13.8.1999
by PW-4, a Sub-Inspector of Police, lritty and his police party c
while they were on patrol duty. While they reached near the bus
stop the accused appellant was seen alighting from a bus with
cloth bag in his hand. Getting suspicious PW-4 tried to stop
him. The accused hurriedly crossed the road and ran away. He
was chased and apprehended by the police party and on
0
examination of the cloth bag in his hand it was found that the
same contained 40 packets of some liquid suspected to be
some illicit arrack. The contraband liquor was seized. The
contents of two out of 40 packets were emptied into a bottle
and sealed. Before the sample bottle was seized, the accused
as well as the properties were taken to the police station where E
the registration of the case was done. The articles were seized
at 6.40 in the afternoon. Samples were produced in Court on
16.8.1999 and till then they were in safe custody. The letter of
the Magistrate clearly shows that when the articles were
produced before him they were packed and sealed. F
4. The survey of the Chemical Analyst (Exh. P-6) shows
that seal of the sample bottle tallied with the specimen seal
separately sent. It was noted that possession of arrack, import
and export transaction, storage and sale of arrack in the State G
of Kerala was totally banned w.e.f. 3.6.1997. The appellate
authority while upholding the conviction dismissed the appeal,
but the sentence was reduced to one year. In revision, no
interference was done by the High Court. ·
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.
...
A evidence on record does not make out a case for conviction
and in any event the sentence is harsh.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other
.
•
hand supported the order.
B 7. Section 55 of the Act so far as relevant reads as follows:
"For illegal import, etc:- Whoever in contravention of this
Act or of any rule or order made under this Act-
(a) imports, exports, transports. transits or possesses
c liquor or any intoxicating drug; or
(b) manufactures liquor or any intoxicating drug;
(c) xxx
(d) taps or causes to be tapped any toddy-producing
D tree, or
(e) draws or causes to be drawn toddy from any tree; or
(f) constructs or works any distillery, brewery, winery or
other manufactory in which liquor is manufactured; or
E
(g) uses, keeps or has in his possession any materials,
still, utensil, implement or apparatus whatsoever for the
purpose of manufacturing liquor other than toddy or any
intoxicating drug; or
-
F (h) bottles any liquor for purposes of sale; or
(i) sells or stores for sale liquor or any intoxicating drug; ,.
shall be punishable
(1) for any offence, other than an offence falling under
G clause (d) or clause (e), with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to ten years and with fine which shall not be ~
less than rupees one lakh and
(2) for an offence falling under clause (d) or clause (e)
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one
H
NHALIYAM MAKKIL RAVEENDRAN v. STATE OF 713
KERALA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, A
or with both. ·
Explanation:- For the purpose of this section and section
64A, "intoxicating drug" means any intoxicating substance,
other than a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance
regulated by the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 8
Substances Act, 1985 (Central Act 61 of 1985), which the
Government may by notification declare to be an
intoxicating drug."
8. Undisputedly, the case at hand is one which is covered c
1 by Section 55(a) of the Act. Two types of punishments are
provided in section 55. One is relatable to offence other than
the offence falling under clause (d) or clause (e) where the
imprisonment is extended to 10 years and with fine which shall
not be less than rupees one lakh. Offence falling under clause D
(d) and (e) carry lesser term of sentence which may extend to
one year or alternatively with fine which may extend to rupees
ten thousand or with both.
9. The words "two years and with fine which shall not be
less than twenty five thousand rupees, and" have been substituted E
by Act 16of1997 w.e.f. 3.6.1997 with the expression "ten years
and with fine which shall not be less than one lakh and". There is
no minimum sentence provided but the outer limit of the
punishment is 10 years. At the same time imposition of fine of
rupees one lakh is statutorily provided without any exception. F
10. Considering the peculiar facts of the case we direct
reduction of the sentence to 9 months. The amount of fine which
is stated to have been deposited is maintained.
11. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
G
K.K.T. Appeal disposed of
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Kerala Abkari Act"Sign in to search