RAVI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal filed under Sec. 374(2) Cr.P.C. the appellant, who was the accused in S.C.No.495/2000 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Court (Fast Track-II), Kozhikode for an offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the said offence. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.

(2.) When this appeal came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge (K. Hema, J.), it was contended that the delay of 16 days in producing the seized properties before the court was fatal in view of Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. The decisions in Dominic v. State of Kerala,1989 1 KerLT 601, Alex v. State of Kerala,2003 1 KerLT 9, Kunhikannan v. State of Kerala, 2006 4 KerLT 469 and Vikraman v. State of Kerala, 2007 1 KerLT 1010 were relied on. Adverting to the aforesaid decisions the learned Single Judge felt that the view taken in the aforesaid decisions that the property seized should be forthwith produced before the Court was not justified since Section 102(3) Cr.P.C only provides for reporting the seizure forthwith. Likewise, it was contended before the learned Judge that production of the accused person and the seized property before an officer holding charge of the Excise Inspector but lower in rank than that of the Excise Inspector is violative of Section 40(3)(b) of the Abkari Act. The said proposition canvassed before the learned Judge was also taken exception to by the learned Judge. Hence this reference.

(3.) The questions referred for decision are