M JANAKIRAMAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in both the revision petitions were accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.195 of 1991 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Pondicherry. Both of them were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 31, 33, 37(a) and 38(1) of Pondicherry Excise Act, 1970 and both of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under each head and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 under each head and for each default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by that, accused No.2 Settu preferred appeal in C.A.No.31 of 1997 and accused No.1 Janakiraman preferred appeal in C.A.No.32 of 1997 and the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, heard both the appeals together and passed a common judgment confirming the conviction of the appellants in both the appeals for the offences under Sections 31, 33 and 37(a) of the Pondicherry Excise Act and modified the sentences by imposing the sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment to each of the appellants under each count and ordered the sentences to run concurrently and further sentenced each of the appellants to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 under each count, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under each count. Against the common judgment, accused No.1 Janakiraman has filed Criminal Revision Case No.249 of 1998 and accused No.2 Settu has filed Criminal Revision Case No.278 of 1998 in this Court.

(2.) THE case in brief is as follows. On 28.4.1990 at 7.30 a.m., P.W.5 Tahsildar (Excise) Viswanathan, 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 (IMFL) at Aranganoor. THEy reached Aranganoor and when they went near the unfinished house of accused No.1 Janakiraman, they noticed the smell of arrack 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 alias Kumari, the daughter-in-law of Janakiraman 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. P.W.5 Excise Officer Viswanathan found a room in the house locked. When enquired, Vasantha told them that the key was with accused No.2, who ran away from there. THEreupon, the lock was broke open and they went inside and saw 2000 bottles containing illicit manufactured brandy and they also found apparatus and other items for manufacturing illicit brandy along with empty bottles. P.W.5 Viswanathan seized the materials under cover of mahazar in the presence of Vasantha and Assistant Inspector. P.W.5 registered a case in Crime No.4 of 1990 under Sections 31,33, 37(a) and 38(1) of Pondicherry Excise Act and sent the samples for chemical analysis. He examined the witnesses and laid the final report.

(3.) THE courts below have not approached the question in proper perspective and there are legal infirmities in the judgments of the courts below.