Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Paul Kuriakose vs The Excise Inspector And Anr

Supreme Court18 March 2016Shiva Kirti Singh · Dipak Misra

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

1. When a car is searched with proper authority and 450 litres of spirit are recovered and subsequently analysed to contain 80.70 per cent by volume of Ethyl Alcohol, the prosecution establishes all necessary ingredients of an offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act through reliable evidence, and the conviction must be affirmed. 2. In sentencing for offences under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, the absence of criminal antecedents and the considerable lapse of time between the commission of the offence and the final adjudication, coupled with the prolonged agony of trial and appellate proceedings spanning more than 15 years, constitute mitigating factors warranting reduction of the rigorous imprisonment sentence.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 234 OF 2016[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.1522 of 2016]

Paul Kuriakose …..Appellant

Versus

The Excise Inspector & Anr. …..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.

Heard the parties. Leave granted.

This appeal is directed against final judgment and order dated 25.11.2015 whereby the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam has dismissed Criminal Appeal No.34/2006 preferred by the appellant by confirming his conviction for the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. However, the High Court granted a limited relief by reducing the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years to that for a period of three years and also by reducing the amount of fine of Rs.5 lacs to Rs.1 lac with a default clause of six months’ simple imprisonment.

Having heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and on perusal of relevant materials on record including the judgment under appeal, we find that the High Court was correct in affirming the conviction because right from the initial stage when the car of the appellant was searched leading to recovery of 450 litres of spirit which on analysis was found to be 80.70 per cent by volume of Ethyl Alcohol, the prosecution has proved all the necessary ingredients of the offence in question by adducing reliable evidence.

Hence we also find no good ground to interfere with appellant’s conviction. So far as the challenge to sentence is concerned, the High Court interfered and reduced the period of imprisonment after noticing that the appellant has no criminal antecedents. Considering the said mitigating factor and also the fact that occurrence in question is of the year 2000 and the appellant has suffered agony of criminal trial and pendency of appeal for more than 15 years, in the facts of the case we are persuaded to further reduce the period of imprisonment from three years to rigorous imprisonment for two years. The amount of fine determined by the High Court as Rs.1 lac along with default clause is however left intact. With the aforesaid modification in sentence of imprisonment, the appeal is disposed of.

.…………………………………….J. [DIPAK MISRA]

……………………………………..J. [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH] New Delhi.

March 18, 2016.

-----------------------

2

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free