Supreme Court of India
STATE REP. BY TAHSILDAR-CUM-SALES OFFICERversusM. JANKIRAMAN & ANR.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 125
- Decided
- 9 February 2009
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
A judgment of acquittal that is unreasoned and fails to engage with the evidence and the conclusions of lower courts must be set aside.
Summary
The respondents, Janakiraman and Settu, were caught during a raid for manufacturing illicit Indian Made Foreign Liquor and were convicted by the trial court and the first appellate court under Sections 31, 33, 37(a) and 38(1) of the Pondicherry Excise Act, 1970. They appealed, and the Madras High Court, in a revision petition, acquitted them but gave an unreasoned order that did not refer to the evidence or the findings of the lower courts. The State challenged this acquittal before the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court failed to examine the material evidence and the conclusions of the earlier courts. The Supreme Court held that a judgment of acquittal must be reasoned and must address the evidence on record; the High Court’s order was therefore unsustainable. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s acquittal and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration with a reasoned order. The appeals were thus partly allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court's acquittal of the accused, without referring to the evidence and the findings of the trial and appellate courts, is legally valid.
Subjects
criminal lawexciseillicit liquorconvictionacquittalrevisionreasoned orderevidenceappellate jurisdiction
Judgment
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 1076
A STATE REP. BY TAHSILDAR-CUM-SALES OFFICER
v.
M. JANKIRAMAN & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 557-558 of 2002)
FEBRUARY 9, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.]
+--.
Pondicherry Excise Act, 1970 - ss. 31, 33 and 37(a) -
c Conviction by trial court and appellate court - Acquittal in
revision - On appeal, held: Since the acquittal order was
unreasoned, matter remitted to High Court.
Respondents-accused were convicted u/ss. 31, 33
and 37 (a) and of Pondicherry Excise Act, 1970 by trial
D
court and appellate court. In revision, High Court .,.-
acquitted them. Hence the present appeal.
Partly allowing the appeals and remitting the matter
to High Court, the Court
E
HELD: The evidence of the witnesses and the
conclusions of the trial Court and the first appellate court
have not been referred to at all in the judgment of the High
Court. When two courts had found the accused persons
guilty, the High Court has not even indicated as to how
F
the conclusions of the trial court and the appellate court
were without any basis or not sustainable. The manner
of disposal of the revision petitions leaves much to be
desired. [Para 5) [1079-D-G]
.,.
G CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 557-558 of 2002.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.2001 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. R.C. Nos. 249 and 278
H 1076
STATE REP. BY TAHSILDAR-CUM-SALES OFFICER v. 1077
M. JANKIRAMAN & ANR.
of 1998. A
V. Kanakaraj, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle, Prabu Rama
Subramanian and S. Thananjayan for the Appellant.
P. Radha Rani and P. Vijay Kumar (for C.S.N. Mohan Rao)
for the Respondents. B
Th Judgment of the Court was delivered by
.. \- DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Challenge in these appeals
is to the judgment of acquittal recorded by a learned Single c
Judge of the Madras High Court. The respondents were
accused in C.C.No.195 of 1991 on the file of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Pondicherry. Both of them were convicted for
offences punishable under Sections 31, 33, 37(a) and 38(1) of
Pondicherry Excise Act. 1970 (in short the 'Act') and each of
D
them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six
-..; months under each head and the sentences were ordered to
run concurrently and fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation
was imposed. Appeals were preferred by the accused persons
and learned llnd Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry
affirmed the conviction so far as offence punishable under E
Sections 31, 33 and 37(a) are concerned. But the sentences
were modified. The accused persons filed a Criminal Revision
petitions before the Madras High Court.
' )< 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: F
On 28.4.1990 at 7.30 a.m. Tahsildar (Excise) Visanathan
(PW-5) alongwith his officials and police party went on a routine
raid and they received information that some people were
indulging in manufacturing illicit Indian Made Foreign Liquor
G
(IMPL) at Aranganoor. They reached Aranganoor and when they
went near the unfinished house of accused No.1 Janakiraman,
- )( they noticed the smell of arrack coming from that house. On
seeing them, a person who was standing there, ran away and
they found a lady there. On enquiry, they came to know that she
was Vasantha @ Kumari, the daughter-in-law of Janakiraman H
1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 1 S.C.R.
A and the person who ran away from there, was accused No.2
Settu another son of Janakiraman and the house belonged to
accused No.1. Janakiraman. Excise Officer, Viswanathan
(P.W.5) found a room in the house locked. When enquired,
Vasantha told them that the key was with accused No.2 who
B ran away from there. Thereupon, the lock was broken and they
went inside and saw 2000 bottles containing illicit liquor
(manufactured brandy) and they also found apparatus and other
items for manufacturing illicit brandy alongwith empty bottles. ~ .
Viswanathan (P.W.5) seized the materials under cover of
c Mahazar in the presence of Vasa nth a and Assistant Inspector.
P.W registered a case in Crime No.4 of 1990 under Sections
31, 33, 37(a) and 38(1) of the Act and sent the samples for
chemical analysis. He examined the witnesses and made the
final report. The trial Court and the first Appellate Court found
D
the accused persons guilty.
The High Court by the impugned order allowed the
. -
Revision Petitions.
3. In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the
E appellant-State submitted that the High Court's judgment is
practically non-reasoned. It does not refer to the factual scenario
or the evidence. Mere reference has been made to certain
judgments of the High Court and this Court without even
indicating as to how they are relevant for the purpose of this
F case. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the
,!_
'
judgment of the High Court.
4. We find that the only reason indicated by the High Court
to direct acquittal reads as follows:
G "Chapter VIII of Pondicherry Excise Act deals with
detection, investigation and trial of offences and its
empowers the excise officers to conduct search to seize
the articles liable for confiscation, to arrest without warrant
to conduct investigation and to complete it since the excise
H officer is empowered to conduct search and is also entitled
STATE REP. BY TAHSILDAR-CUM-SALES OFFICER v. 1079
M. JANKIRAMAN &ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
to make investigation and complete the same in A
accordance with law. The fact that the complainant himself
conducted investigation in the present case would not
vitiate the proceedings. The contention of the petitioners
that the procedure adopted by PW-5 in filing the complaint
and conducting the investigation are vitiated by illegality B
cannot be accepted."
- i'
5. The evidence of the witnesses and the conclusions of
the trial Court and the first Appellate Court have not been
referred to at all. When two courts had found the accused
persons guilty, the High Court has even not indicated as to how C
the conclusions of the trial Court and the Appellate court were
without any basis or not sustainable. The manner of disposal
of the Revision Petitions leaves much to be desired. Above
being the position, we set aside the impugned judgment of the
- '{
High Court and remit the matter to the High Court for a fresh D
consideration and disposal by a reasoned order. Needless to
say that the factual scenario and the evidence has to be
analysed by the High Court while deciding the revision petitions
afresh.
E
6. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
K.K.T. Appeals partly allowed.
..
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "criminal law"Sign in to search