MATHAI JOHN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in C. C. 198 of 1975 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Adoor. He was convicted for offences punishable under S.55(a), (b) and (g) of the Kerala Abkari Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- under S.5S(b). In default of payment of fine, he is to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. Separate sentences were not awarded under S.55(a) and (g) of the Act. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Quilon. The conviction and sentence were confirmed in appeal. The revision petition is filed challenging the conviction and sentence.

(2.) The defence set up before the Trial Court and the appellate court was one of denial of the incident. An alternate contention was also raised that there is no sufficient material in the case to show that the building wherein the articles were found was in the possession of the petitioner. The courts below overruled the contention and held that on the evidence, it was clearly established that the petitioner did the acts alleged against him and that the building was owned by him and was in his possession. There are no proper reasons to interfere with the findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence.

(3.) The only plea put forward on behalf of the petitioner is that being a first offender, he may be released on probation of good conduct. The prayer is opposed. One of the objections raised on behalf of the State is based on the fact that S.55 of the Abkari Act prescribes a minimum sentence of imprisonment. This objection has no force. The Probation of Offenders Act does not exclude from its operation offences for which a minimum sentence of imprisonment is fixed Only offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life and those under S.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act have been exempted from the operation of the Probation of Offenders Act. A similar objection was raised in connection with the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Supreme Court in Isher Das v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1972 SC 1295 ) overruled the contention.