Kerala High Court
Thankamani vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 15 November, 2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2016/20TH ASHADHA, 1938
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 986 of 2003 ( )
--------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.APPEAL NO.143/1998 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
COURT (ADHOC-1), THALASSERY DATED 15-11-2002
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 587/1996 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS, MATTANNUR DATED 31-03-1998
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
----------------------------------------
THANKAMANI, D/O. APPU,
CHAVASSERRY.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.SURESH
SRI.C.A.CHACKO
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.G. LISHA.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 11-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
acd
P.D. RAJAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.986 of 2003
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of July, 2016
ORDER
This revision petition is preferred by the accused against the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.143/1998 of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Thalassery. He was charge sheeted in C.C.No.587/1996 before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattannur u/s.55(g) of the Abkari Act. The learned Magistrate convicted her and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of 25,000/- with a default sentence of three months. Against that, she preferred the above criminal appeal before Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc-I), Thalassery, where the learned Judge dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by that, the accused preferred this revision petition.
2. The charge against the accused is that on 1.12.1995 at Crl.R.P.No.986/2003 2 about 9.30 a.m., the Excise Inspector, Mattannur conducted a search in the house of the accused and seized 1.5 litres of arrack and 30 litres of wash. The accused was arrested and registered a case. After completing investigation, laid charge in the trial Court. In pursuance of the charge, prosecution examined PW1 to PW4 and marked Exts.P1 to P4 and MO1 to MO6 in evidence. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning her. She did not adduce any defence evidence.
3. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that there is no evidence to prove the possession and ownership of the house from where the contraband articles were seized.
4. Apex Court in Ghuran Yadav v. State of Bihar [AIR 1971 SC 1641] held as follows:
"4. On going through the record and examining the evidence which we have just discussed we are clear that there is no legal evidence on the record on which we can sustain the conclusions of the courts below that it was Crl.R.P.No.986/2003 3 the appellant's house which was searched.
5. Normally this Court, of course, does not examine for appraisal under Art.136 of the Constitution the evidence on questions of fact decided by the courts below. But when there are reasons to think that the conclusions may be based on no evidence, then this Court is not only entitled but it has an obligation in the larger interests of justice to examine the evidence to see if there is legal evidence on which those conclusions can be sustained. In this case we find that there is no legal evidence on which the courts below could base their conclusions. The appeal accordingly succeeds and allowing the same we acquit the appellant."
5. In the light of the above decision, I have examined whether there is any evidence to connect the accused with the alleged offence. The occurrence was deposed by PW1, the Excise Inspector, Mattannur. His evidence shows that on 1.12.1995, he got information that the accused was manufacturing illicit arrack in her residence. He prepared a search memorandum and sent it to the Court, thereafter arrived at the house of the accused, conducted a search, during search, he seized 1.5 ml arrack and 30 litres of wash, for that he prepared Ext.P1 mahazar. After taking sample, he destroyed the wash at the place of occurrence. MO1 to MO6 Crl.R.P.No.986/2003 4 were taken into custody. The accused was released on bail. He also registered Ext.P2 crime and occurrence report. The arrack was send over to the chemical examination lab and obtained Ext.P3 chemical analysis report. Ext.P4 is the search list. PW2 supported the evidence of PW1, who identified signature in Ext.P1. He also identified MO1 to MO3. PW4 deposed that it was seized from a shed near the house of the accused. The independent witnesses residing near the house of the revision petitioner identified the revision petitioner. It is true that no documentary evidence has been adduced by PW1 to prove the possession of the house, but the evidence of independent witnesses and the excise officials show that MO1 to MO6 were seized from the house of the revision petitioner.
6. Hence, the conviction u/s.55(g) of the Act is confirmed but the sentence is modified as follows: The revision petitioner is a widow, aged 55 years, having three children, she is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the Crl.R.P.No.986/2003 5 court and fine of 25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for three months. She is directed to surrender in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattannur forthwith to undergo the modified sentence.
The revision petition is disposed of.
P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.
acd