Kerala High Court
V.K. Ramesh vs State Of Kerala on 24 January, 2025
2025:KER:4996
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 2ND MAGHA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1896 OF 2013
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED IN Crl.A NO.148 OF 2013 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), PATHANAMTHITTA
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.205 OF 2011 OF ASSISTANT
SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVALLA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
V.K. RAMESH, S/O.KUMARAN, VAZHAPARAMBIL CHERIYIL
HOUSE,PUNNAKUNNAM MURI, KUTTAPUZHA-
THIRUVALLA,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA)
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
ADV.MAYA M N , PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 22.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.1896/2013
2
2025:KER:4996
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition is preferred impugning the
judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc-I,
Pathanamthitta in Crl.Appeal No.148/2013 dated 21.08.2013.
2. The revision petitioner herein is the sole accused in
Crime No.76/2006 of Thiruvalla Excise Range registered for offence
punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 17.02.2006 at about
8.30p.m., the accused was found carrying 40.510 liters of illicit liquor in
98 bottles, loaded in a gunny bag on his back near Kottalil Bridge,
Thiruvalla. In the trial court, PWs.1 to 4 were examined, Exts.P1 to P8
were marked and Mos.1 to 5 were also identified. On the side of the
defence, DW1 was examined.
4. After full fledged trial, the trial court convicted and
sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years
and pay fine of Rs.1 lakh. In default of payment of fine to undergo simple
imprisonment for another six months. The appellate court confirmed the
sentence.
2025:KER:4996
5. Impugning the judgment of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta, the accused preferred this revision.
6. I have heard Adv.Maya M.N, learned Public
Prosecutor and Adv. K.N.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for
the revision petitioner.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the
impugned order is legally sustainable and no interference, whatsoever, is
warranted in this matter. She further submitted that the prosecution has
succeeded in alleging and proving the charge against the revision
petitioner.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner submitted that the impugned order is illegal, irregular and
improper. Both the trial court and the appellate court had failed to note
the illegalities and improprieties in this case. The learned counsel further
submitted that the prosecution has failed to allege and prove the charge
against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the
penal statutes are to be interpreted strictly within the four corners of the
statute. Suspicion, however strong it may be, it would not be a substitute
for proof. The impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures.
2025:KER:4996
9. Before further discussion, it may be fruitful to extract
the relevant section:
"55. For illegal import, etc. - Whoever in contravention of
this Act or of any rule or order made under this Act
(a) imports, exports, [transports, transits or
possesses] liquor or any intoxicating drug; or
(b) Manufactures liquor or any intoxicating drug;
(c) xxx
(d) taps or causes to be tapped] any toddy-
producing tree, or
(e) draws or causes to be drawn] toddy from any
tree; or
(f) constructs or works any [distillery, brewery,
winery or other manufactory in which liquor is
manufactured; or
(g) uses, keeps, or has in his possession any
materials, still, utensil, implement or apparatus
whatsoever for the purpose of manufacturing
liquor other than toddy or any intoxicating drug;
or
(h) bottles any liquor for purposes of sale; or
(i) Sells or stores for sales liquor] or any
intoxicating drug;
shall be punished.-"
10. We have heard the rival submissions of the counsel for
the parties and perused the records.
11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has
challenged the judgment mainly on three grounds. The first submission of
2025:KER:4996
the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that, the samples were
not taken from all the bottles, one sample each were taken from a
particular brand. It is submitted that, if samples were not taken from all
the bottles, it cannot be said that the contents of the bottles are illicit
liquor. It is pertinent to note that, in Ext.P1 seizure mahazar, it is neither
stated that the samples were sealed nor the details of specimen seal were
mentioned in it.
12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further
submitted that, absence of impression of specimen seal in the mahazar
and the property list is a circumstance to doubt the prosecution story.
13. It is his case that, prosecution is duty bound to prove
that there was tamper-proof dispatch of the samples. It is further
submitted that the independent witnesses in this case turned hostile to the
prosecution.
14. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further
submitted that the revision petitioner is falsely implicated in this case by a
person named James. The said James approached the petitioner and
seeks some donation and when the revision petitioner refused to pay the
amount, the said James influenced PW4 and booked him in this case.
2025:KER:4996
15. On going through the facts and circumstances of the
case, it is clear that, both the trial court and appellate court have failed to
consider serious illegalities in the prosecution case. The absence of
impression of the specimen seal in the mahazar and in the property list,
casts serious doubts in the prosecution story. It is trite law that the
prosecution has to allege and prove the charge against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. It is well settled that, if two views are possible in a
particular case, wherein, one pointing out the guilt of the accused and the
other, showing the innocence of the accused, the courts have to adopt the
latter view.
16. In the instant case, it could be seen that the
prosecution has failed to aver and prove the guilt of the accused/revision
petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, independent witnesses
turned hostile to the prosecution.
17. In the light of the above discussion, I am of the
considered opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Both
the trial court and the appellate court have overlooked the serious
illegalities which cuts the very root of the prosecution story.
2025:KER:4996
In the result,
(i) Criminal revision petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order is set aside.
(iii) The revision petitioner/accused is acquitted and he is
set at liberty.
(iv) The bail bond, if any, executed by the revision
petitioner stands cancelled.
(v) Fine, if any, paid by him shall be refunded.
Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
Sbna/
