Kerala High Court
Bhuvanendran vs State Of Kerala on 26 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1942
CRL.A.No.1183 OF 2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 461/2001 DATED 19-05-2006 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK COURT-I),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST CP 210/2000 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS-I,ATTINGAL
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
BHUVANENDRAN
S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI,
BLOCK NO.11,
JAWAHAR COLONY, ANADU MURI,
PERINGAMALA VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN
SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
SMT. MAYA M.N., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
26.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.Appeal No.1183/06 -:2:-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 26th day of February, 2021
Appellant challenges the conviction and sentence imposed on him by
judgment dated 19.5.2006 in S.C. No.461 of 2001 on the files of the
Sessions Judge, Fast Track-I, Thiruvananthapuram. By the impugned
judgment, the accused was found guilty under Section 55(a) of the Abkari
Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and
to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of pay fine to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year.
2. The prosecution case was that on 20.2.1999, the accused was
found in possession of 150 litres of arrack in six plastic cans kept by him for
the purpose of sale in the rubber estate of one Shamsudeen. The crime was
detected by PW6, who was then an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, and
registered Ext.P3 FIR and thereafter PW5 conducted the investigation and
filed the final report. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and marked
Ext.P1 to Ext.P4, apart from the material objects MO1 series. The learned
Sessions Judge, after appreciating the evidence adduced, found the accused
guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment and fine as mentioned earlier.
3. I have heard Sri.Akhil K.K., learned counsel for the appellant as
well as Smt.Maya M.N., learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
4. The solitary point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is
that the crime was detected, accused was arrested and crime was registered
by a person who was not authorized under the Abkari Act. Inviting my
attention to the evidence of PW6, it was submitted that PW6 was only an
Assistant Sub Inspector of Police who was not authorized to detect arrest or
register a crime.
5. On a perusal of the deposition of PW6, it is seen that even though
at the time of deposition he was the Sub Inspector of Police, on 20.2.1999,
he was an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. As held repeatedly by this
Court in various decisions, an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police is not an
authorised officer in 1999 under the Abkari Act. In the circumstances of
the case, the very edifice of the prosecution case falls to ground since the
crime was detected, accused was arrested and crime was registered by a
person who was not authorised under the Abkari Act. Only a person
specifically authorised is entitled to detect or arrest or register a crime. In
the said circumstances, since the very genesis of the prosecution case is
faulty, the accused is entitled to be acquitted.
6. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused
in S.C. No.461 of 2001 on the files of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track-I,
Thiruvananthapuram, is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted. The
bail bonds, if any, executed shall stand cancelled and the fine amount, if any,
remitted shall be refunded forthwith.
The appeal is allowed as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
vps
/True Copy/ PS to Judge
