ALAMKAI MADHAVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted by JFCM Court-II, Hosdurg for offence punishable under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act. The commission of offence was prior to the amendment and hence the case was tried by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay Rs. 25,000/-as fine and in default to undergo R.I. for two months. The appeal filed by her was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge.

(2.) The petitioner challenged the concurrent verdict of conviction contending that there is legal infirmity which would vitiate the conviction. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was delay in producing the sample. According to the learned counsel, it was produced after about one and half month. But there is evidence to show that the sample was properly sealed and labeled and left thumb impression of the accused was obtained on the sample. The fact that when the sample reached the laboratory for chemical examination, the seal on the sample was found intact was not challenged by the defence. It would negative the case advanced by the counsel that the delay in forwarding the sample has prejudiced the accused. It is important to note that the crime report and other records were produced before the court on 31.5.1996. In other words, the seizure of the contraband was reported on the very same day. It is also argued that the wash as such was not produced before the court. But the learned Magistrate has found that on a perusal of the property list, there is an endorsement that wash was destroyed. That is the usual practice. The label on M.O.1 contains the left thumb impression of the accused. Therefore, there is guarantee that M.O.1 which reached the court contained the label which was affixed at the time of seizure. The view taken by the learned Magistrate was accepted by the learned Sessions Judge who after re-appreciation of the evidence concurred with the findings entered by the learned Magistrate. There is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the finding entered by the two courts below. The conviction is only to be confirmed.

(3.) The offence was committed on 31.5.1996. As the law then stood, the punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act was imprisonment for a term which may extend for two years and fine which may extend to 5000 rupees. In the absence of special and adequate reason to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment, such imprisonment shall not be less than six months and fine shall not be less than 5000 rupees for the first offence. No evidence was adduced to show that the petitioner was previously convicted for such an offence. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner is a lady aged 62 years and there is nobody else to look after her and hence leniency may be shown. Considering all the aspects, the sentence awarded by the court below is modified.