LALICHAN Vs THE STATE OF KERALA
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
Judgment by: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000022-000022 / 2019
Diary number: 19137 / 2017
Advocates: SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN Vs
VIPIN NAIR
SLP(Crl.) No.8113/2017
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 22 OF 2019
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 8113 OF 2017)
LALICHAN ....APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF KERALA ....RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
R. Subhash Reddy, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the sole
accused in S.C. No. 274 of 2013 on the file of the
First Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha, aggrieved
by the conviction recorded and sentence imposed by the
Judgment dated 22.11.2013 and the Judgment of the High
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 25.01.2017 passed
in Criminal Appeal No. 1701/2013.
1
SLP(Crl.) No.8113/2017
3. The appellant herein was prosecuted for offence
punishable under Section 8(2) and Section 63 of Kerala
Abkari Act. It was the case of the prosecution that
when the Excise Inspector Peerumedu Excise Range
conducted a search in the House of the Appellant
accused on 08.01.2011, he was found to be in
possession of 4.5 litres of arrack in a plastic can
and 3.750 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor.
4. It is alleged that such possession is illegal
and in violation of the Kerala Abkari Act. He was
arrested and contraband was seized by conducting
seizure mahazar.
5. For the aforesaid violations, he was
chargesheeted and the prosecution has examined four
witnesses, including, the detecting officer and marked
Exhibits P1 to P9 and MO1 to MO3 were also identified
during trial. On appreciation of evidence, the Trial
Court by Judgment dated 22.11.2013, found the accused
guilty and was convicted under Sections 8(2) and 63 of
the Abkari Act.
2
SLP(Crl.) No.8113/2017
6. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for one year and fine of
Rs.1,00,000/-( Rupees One Lakh) under Section 8(2) of
the Act, and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five
Thousand Only) under Section 63 of the Act. Aggrieved
by the said conviction and sentence imposed, he has
filed Criminal Appeal No. 1701/2013 before the High
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The High Court vide
Judgment dated 25.01.2017, while confirming the
conviction recorded has modified the sentence by
reducing the simple imprisonment to nine months.
However, the sentence imposed under Section 63 of the
Act was maintained.
7. When the Special Leave Petition is filed before
this Court by seeking condonation of delay, this Court
vide Order dated 13.10.2017, while condoning delay
issued notice confining only to the question of factum
of sentence.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant and
Counsel for the respondent-State and perused the
3
SLP(Crl.) No.8113/2017
Judgment of the Trial Court as well as the High Court
and other material placed on record.
9. During the course of hearing, it is brought to
our notice that the appellant herein was in custody
for about thirty-five days and, by Order dated
07.09.2017 passed by the Learned Chamber Judge, has
granted exemption from surrendering.
10. Having heard the learned counsel on both the
sides, seeing the gravity of offence and the quantum
of liquor seized during search conducted on
08.01.2011, we are of the view that the interest of
justice would be met if the imprisonment is reduced to
the period, already undergone by the appellant. As it
stated that he was already in the custody for thirty-
five days, we deem it appropriate to modify the
sentence, for the period already undergone. At the
same time, we confirm the penalty imposed by the Trial
Court, as confirmed by the High Court. The penalty
amount, if not paid already, shall be paid within a
period of four weeks from today. The Sentence imposed
in the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 22.11.2013 as
4
SLP(Crl.) No.8113/2017
modified by the High Court Judgment dated 25.01.2017,
stands modified, to the extent indicated above.
11. The Appeal is allowed in part as indicated
above. No order as to costs.
.................... J.
[Abhay Manohar Sapre]
.................... J.
[R. Subhash Reddy]
NEW DELHI, JANUARY 07, 2019
5