Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.22 seconds)Sabu vs State Of Kerala on 29 August, 2003
Rules 9,11 and 11A of the Foreign Liquor Rules restricts possession and
transportation of such Indian made foreign liquor. In the light of the
above provisions of law, it can be safely concluded that the offence
committed by the appellant is punishable under Section 63 of the Abkari
Act for violation of the rules made under the provisions of the Abkari Act.
The judgment of this Court reported in Sabu v. State of Kerala, 2007(4)
K.L.T. 169, supports this view.
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Surendran vs The Excise Inspector on 8 July, 2004
6. The next question to be considered is whether the finding
entered by the trial court that the appellant committed offence punishable
under Section 55(a) read with Section 55(1) of the Abkari Act is justifiable
or not. As per the principles laid down by this Court in the decisions
CRL.APPEAL NO.456/2003 6
reported in Surendran v. Excise Inspector, 2004(1) K.L.T. 404 and
Sudhepan v. State of Kerala, 2006(1) K.L.T. S.N. 52 Case No.72, to
attract an offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, the prosecution
must allege and prove that possession of such contraband articles was in
connection with export, import, transport or transit. In this context, the
evidence of PWs.1 and 3 would show that while they were checking the
vehicles in the national highway, they saw the appellant and another
person transporting Indian made foreign liquor in an autorickshaw. It is
seen that except for the labels in the bottles, there is no other evidence to
show that the contraband articles were being imported from outside the
State. The evidence of PW3 also would show that the Karnataka Sales Tax
Check Post was 200 feet away from the place of incident which means
that the contraband articles could not have been imported. If so, the
finding of the trial court that the appellant committed offence punishable
under Section 55(a) read with Section 55(1) of the Abkari Act is not
legally tenable. Accordingly the said finding and the conviction and
sentence ordered against the appellant under Section 55(a) of the Abkari
Act is set aside.
Dr.K.Sudheendran vs State Of Kerala on 22 November, 2001
6. The next question to be considered is whether the finding
entered by the trial court that the appellant committed offence punishable
under Section 55(a) read with Section 55(1) of the Abkari Act is justifiable
or not. As per the principles laid down by this Court in the decisions
CRL.APPEAL NO.456/2003 6
reported in Surendran v. Excise Inspector, 2004(1) K.L.T. 404 and
Sudhepan v. State of Kerala, 2006(1) K.L.T. S.N. 52 Case No.72, to
attract an offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, the prosecution
must allege and prove that possession of such contraband articles was in
connection with export, import, transport or transit. In this context, the
evidence of PWs.1 and 3 would show that while they were checking the
vehicles in the national highway, they saw the appellant and another
person transporting Indian made foreign liquor in an autorickshaw. It is
seen that except for the labels in the bottles, there is no other evidence to
show that the contraband articles were being imported from outside the
State. The evidence of PW3 also would show that the Karnataka Sales Tax
Check Post was 200 feet away from the place of incident which means
that the contraband articles could not have been imported. If so, the
finding of the trial court that the appellant committed offence punishable
under Section 55(a) read with Section 55(1) of the Abkari Act is not
legally tenable. Accordingly the said finding and the conviction and
sentence ordered against the appellant under Section 55(a) of the Abkari
Act is set aside.
1