JAYACHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the convict in S.C.No.758/2007 of the Sessions Court, Palakkad, tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Palakkad. He was prosecuted for the commission of offence under Sec. 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. As per the judgment dtd. 23/2/2011, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Palakkad sentenced the petitioner to simple imprisonment for six months and fine Rs.1,00,000.00 with a default clause of simple imprisonment for six months under Sec. 8(2) read with Sec. 8(1) of the Abkari Act. Though the petitioner had filed appeal before the Sessions Court, Palakkad as Crl.A.No.144/2011, the Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence to simple imprisonment for four months, retaining the fine as such. The present revision petition is directed against the above concurrent findings of conviction of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, and the modified sentence imposed by the Sessions Court, Palakkad in Crl.A.No.144/2011.

(2.) The case against the petitioner is that, on 5/7/2006 at about 6:00 p.m, he was found to have been in possession of five litres of arrack in a black jerry can of 5 litres capacity. The Excise Inspector of Parli Range and his team are said to have arrested the petitioner with the contraband arrack and collected samples on the spot. The petitioner was produced before the Magistrate concerned and remanded to judicial custody. The contraband items seized from the petitioner, as well as the sample collected on the spot, are said to have been forwarded to the Magistrate concerned. From the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, the aforesaid sample is said to have been sent for chemical examination to the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory. After the completion of the investigation, the Excise Inspector of Parli Excise Range laid the final report before the Magistrate concerned in respect of the offence under Sec. 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act.

(3.) Upon commitment and make over of the case, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Palakkad proceeded with the trial by framing charges under Sec. 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. Four witnesses were examined from the part of the prosecution as PW1 to PW4 and 8 documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P8. One material object was identified as MO1. After the close of the prosecution case, the petitioner was questioned by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Palakkad under Sec. 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C The petitioner totally denied the incriminating circumstances put to him in the above examination. Finding that there is no scope for an acquittal under Sec. 232 Cr.P.C., the learned Assistant Sessions Judge afforded opportunity to the petitioner to adduce defence evidence. However, the petitioner did not adduce any evidence. After the evaluation of the aforesaid evidence and hearing both sides, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge arrived at the finding that the petitioner committed offence punishable under Sec. 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. Accordingly, the petitioner was awarded the sentence as stated hereinabove. In the appeal filed before the Sessions Court, Palakkad as Crl.A.No.144/2011, the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad who heard that appeal, found that there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge modified the sentence imposed upon the petitioner to simple imprisonment for four months retaining the fine of Rs.1,00,000.00 as such. The default clause of simple imprisonment for six months awarded by the Trial Court was modified to simple imprisonment for three months. It is the aforesaid judgment of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad in Crl.A.No.144/2011 which is under challenge in this revision petition.