Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala Represented By The ... vs M/S Hotel Asliyya Regency on 22 August, 2025
Author: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:64227
CRL.REV.PET NO. 357 OF 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 357 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.10.2013 IN CC NO.707 OF 2006
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I,VARKALA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
INSPPECTOR ,LEGAL METROLOGY ATTINGAL
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR
LEGAL METROLOGY ATTINGAL, PIN - 695101
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4:
1 M/S HOTEL ASLIYYA REGENCY
KADAMPATTUKONAM NAVAIKULAM, PIN - 695146
2 ASOKAN VASU
PROPRIETOR HOTEL ASLIYYA REGENCY
KADAMPATTUKONAM NAVAIKULAM, PIN - 695146
*3 MANOJ (DELETED)
MANAGER HOTAL ASLIYYA REGENCY KADAMPATTUKONAM
NAVAIKULAM, PIN - 695146
*4 RAJESH (DELETED)
BARMAN HOTEL ASLIYYA REGENCY KADAMPATTUKONAM
NAVAIKULAM, PIN - 695146
2025:KER:64227
CRL.REV.PET NO. 357 OF 2023
2
ADDL.R3 AND R4 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY
AS PER ORDER DATED 04/03/2025 IN CRL MA 1/2024 IN
CRL.R.P 357/2023
BY ADV SRI.P.P.BIJU
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:64227
CRL.REV.PET NO. 357 OF 2023
3
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.1103 of 2023
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2025
ORDER
This criminal revision petition is filed against the concurrent finding of acquittal passed by the trial court and the appellate court in favour of the respondent. A complaint was filed by the Inspector, Legal Metrology, Attingal, against the respondents alleging offences under Sections 30, 31, 39(1) and 39(2) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 and Rules 2(r) and 23(2) of the Standards of Weights and Measures Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977.
2. The case of the complainant can be summarized as follows:
Complainant is the Inspector of Legal Metrology, Chirayinkeezh Taluk. Attingal. Complainant had conducted inspection in the bar hotel named M/s.Hotel Asiliyya Regency, Kadambattukonam in Navaikulam on 10-6-2005. While conducting inspection the complainant had purchased 180 ml 2025:KER:64227 CRL.REV.PET NO. 357 OF 2023 4 E-VSOP brandy and two bottles of Club soda (back piper) as per cash bill No.10087. When the brandy was again measured by using the standard check measure there was found to be shortage of 19 ml. To be more specific, the two 90 ml purchased was found to be of only 80 ml and 81 ml respectively. On further scrutiny the peg measure maintained by the said bar hotel was found to be not having the measurement as per the standards of weights and measures rules. The two club sodas were billed for Rs.6 per bottle against the declared maximum retail price of Rs.5/- each. The maximum retail price is the price at which a commodity has to be sold to the ultimate customer. So the complainant was convinced that in order to make unjust benefit against the act and rules mentioned supra the bar hotel had maintained peg measure of containing lesser volume than required, sold club sodas for excessive price and failed to give the adequate quantity of liquor to the customer to which he was entitled. Hence the complaint.
3. To substantiate the case, PWs 1 to 3 were examined on the side of the complainant and Exts.P1 to P11 were marked. DW1 is the defence witness and Exts.D1 and D2 2025:KER:64227 CRL.REV.PET NO. 357 OF 2023 5 are the exhibits. After going through the evidence and documents, trial court found that accused Nos.1 to 3 are not guilty and acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The case against the 4th accused was refiled as CC No.832/2013.
4. Aggrieved by the acquittal order, an appeal is filed before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The Additional Sessions Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram considered the appeal and confirmed the acquittal order passed by the trial court, by dismissing the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed.
5. Heard the the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
6. The trial court and the appellate court concurrently found that accused Nos.1 to 3 are not guilty for the offfences alleged. This revision is filed against the finding of acquittal by the trial court and the appellate court. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with such concurrent finding of acquittal is very limited. Unless there is illegality, irregularity and impropriety, this Court need not invoke the revisional jurisdiction against the concurrent finding of 2025:KER:64227 CRL.REV.PET NO. 357 OF 2023 6 acquittal order by the trial court and the appellate court. Keeping in mind the above principle, this Court perused the impugned judgments and the available records. I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing to interfere with thee impugned judgments.
There is no merit in this revision petition and hence, dismissed.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
2025:KER:64227
CRL.REV.PET NO. 357 OF 2023
7
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 357/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
28.10.2013 ON THE FILE OF JUUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT 1 VARKALA IN CC NO. 707/2006 Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE 1 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM