Supreme Court Modifies Sentence in Abkari Act Case Considering Long Pendency and No Criminal Antecedents. Conviction under Section 55(a) of Abkari Act upheld but sentence reduced to one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,00,000.

In Favour of Accused
  • 113
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court heard an appeal against the judgment of the Kerala High Court which had upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act but modified the sentence to two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000, while setting aside the conviction under Section 309 IPC. The appellant was found in possession of 3000 litres of spirit stored in 86 cans in a rented house, along with co-accused, and was entrusted to deal with it on commission basis. The detection occurred on 12 June 1999. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 55(a) and Section 309 IPC, sentencing him to three years imprisonment and fine. On appeal, the High Court reduced the sentence to two years and set aside the Section 309 conviction. The Supreme Court, after hearing counsel and perusing the evidence, found no reason to interfere with the conviction. However, considering that 23 years had passed since the incident and the appellant had no criminal antecedents, the Court modified the sentence to one year simple imprisonment while maintaining the fine of Rs. 1,00,000, with a default sentence of six months. The appellant was directed to surrender within four weeks to undergo the remaining sentence.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Abkari Act - Section 55(a) - Conviction - Possession and dealing with spirit - Appellant convicted for possession of 3000 litres of spirit stored in rented house - Conviction upheld by High Court and Supreme Court - Held that evidence of prosecution witnesses established guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 5-9).

B) Criminal Law - Sentence Modification - Long Pendency - No Criminal Antecedents - Supreme Court modified sentence from 2 years to 1 year simple imprisonment while upholding fine of Rs. 1,00,000 - Held that 23 years elapsed since incident and appellant had no criminal antecedents, warranting reduction in sentence (Paras 10-11).

C) Criminal Law - Section 309 IPC - Attempt to Commit Suicide - Conviction set aside by High Court - Not challenged further - Held that conviction under Section 309 IPC was not pressed (Para 8).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act should be modified considering the long pendency of the case and absence of criminal antecedents.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act but modified the sentence to simple imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 1,00,000, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment of six months. The appeal was disposed of with direction to the appellant to surrender within four weeks.

Law Points

  • Section 55(a) of Abkari Act
  • Section 309 IPC
  • Sentence modification
  • Long pendency
  • No criminal antecedents
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (SC) (6) 22

Criminal Appeal No(s). 907 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 239 of 2022)

2022-06-22

Ajay Rastogi, C.T. Ravikumar

Sunil Kumar

State of Kerala & Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 55(a) of Abkari Act and Section 309 IPC.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought reduction of sentence or acquittal.

Filing Reason

Appellant was convicted for possession of 3000 litres of spirit and attempt to commit suicide.

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted appellant under Section 55(a) and Section 309 IPC, sentenced to 3 years imprisonment and fine. High Court upheld conviction under Section 55(a) but reduced sentence to 2 years and set aside Section 309 conviction.

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act is sustainable. Whether the sentence should be modified considering the long pendency and absence of criminal antecedents.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued for reduction of sentence based on long pendency and no criminal antecedents. Respondent supported the conviction and sentence.

Ratio Decidendi

While upholding conviction under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, the Supreme Court modified the sentence considering the long pendency of 23 years and the absence of criminal antecedents, reducing the sentence to one year simple imprisonment.

Judgment Excerpts

taking into consideration the overall aspect of the matter and the fact that 23 years have been rolled by this time from the date of incident and also noticing that there are no criminal antecedents against the appellant as indicated in Para 20 of the impugned judgment, while upholding conviction under Section 55(a), consider it appropriate to modify the sentence to simple imprisonment of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lakh only), in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment of six months.

Procedural History

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge on 7 October 2005. The High Court of Kerala in Criminal Appeal No. 460 of 2006 on 24 November 2020 upheld conviction under Section 55(a) but modified sentence and set aside Section 309 conviction. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, which disposed of the appeal on 22 June 2022.

Acts & Sections

  • Abkari Act: 55(a)
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 309
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 313
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Civil Revision Application, Rejects Plaint in Hindu Succession Partition Suit. Granddaughter Lacks Coparcenary Rights Under Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 When Her Mother is Alive and Not Claiming Partition.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes DV Act Proceedings Against Married Sister and Brother-in-Law. Married Sister Not a 'Respondent' Under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as She Does Not Share a Domestic Relationship or Shared Household wit...