Page 1

Crl.A. @ S.L.P(Crl.)No.1522 of 2016

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.

1. Heard the parties.  Leave granted.

2. 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.

3. 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  

1

Page 2

Crl.A. @ S.L.P(Crl.)No.1522 of 2016

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.

4. Hence we also find no good ground to interfere with appellant’s  

conviction.

5. 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.  

6. 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