Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.19 seconds)Surendran vs The Excise Inspector on 8 July, 2004
4. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the prosecution has no case that the possession of
the liquor by the petitioner is in the course of import, export,
transport or transit. No allegations have been made and no
evidence had been led also to the effect that the petitioner
possessed liquor with the knowledge that it has been illegally
imported. Therefore, in view of the decision of the two
Division Bench decisions in Surendran's case (supra) and
Crl. R.P.No.1098/03 4
Cr.R.P.No.220/2001, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted
either for an offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act or
under Section 58 of the Abkari Act. But, of course, the bottles
seized from the petitioner did not contain the seal of the
Beverages Corporation. Therefore it cannot be said that the
possession of the liquor by the petitioner is legal. Therefore,
at least an offence under Section 63 of the Act is attracted. In
the above circumstances, I acquit the petitioner of the offence
under Section 55(a) and convict him under Section 63 of the
Abkari Act. I sentence him to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees
five thousand only).
Section 428 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1