Joseph vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 9652 Ker

Kerala High Court

Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 14 October, 2025

                                                               2025:KER:76179
Crl.R.P.No.4386/2006
                                         -:1:-

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                       PRESENT

                         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH

     TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 22ND ASWINA, 1947

                            CRL.REV.PET NO. 4386 OF 2006

            AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.10.2006 IN CRL.A NO.94 OF
                        2004 OF THE SESSIONS COURT

        AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.02.2004 IN CC NO.739 OF
  1999 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,PATHANAMTHITTA

REVISION PETITIONER/1ST APPELLANT/2ND ACCUSED:

                   JOSEPH,
                   S/O. THOMAS, VANDEMKUNNEL,
                   (KOONAMTTATHIL VEEDU),
                   MONIPPALLY MURI,
                   MONIPPALLY VILLAGE,
                   MEENACHAL.

                   BY ADV SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEWS

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

                   STATE OF KERALA​
                   REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                   HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
                   ERNAKULAM.

                   SMT. SEENA C., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 14.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                            2025:KER:76179
Crl.R.P.No.4386/2006
                                       -:2:-


                                   ORDER

The revision petitioner is the second accused in C.C.No.739/1999

on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta,

a case relating to the commission of offences under Sections 465, 471 &

486 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short,

'IPC'), and Section 58 of the Abkari Act.

2.​ The case pertains to the seizure of 723 bottles of foreign

liquor from the liquor shop held by the petitioner herein as contractor,

with the first accused as Manager, on 24.12.1994. According to the

prosecution, the aforesaid foreign liquor seized, contained forged stickers

and labels without batch number, manufacturing date etc., and hence the

attempt of the petitioner and other accused were to sell illicit liquor. The

petitioner, along with accused Nos.1 & 4, were convicted and sentenced

by the learned Magistrate vide judgment dated 25.02.2004. They were

awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offence under

Section 465 read with Section 34 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for

three months each under Section 471 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for

one year each under Section 486 IPC. For the offence under Section 58

of the Abkari Act, the accused were sentenced to simple imprisonment 2025:KER:76179

for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In the appeal preferred

before the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, as Crl.Appeal Nos.94 &

98/2004, the Appellate Court acquitted the fourth accused. However, the

conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner herein and the first

accused were confirmed by the Appellate Court.

3.​ Challenging the concurrent verdicts of the Sessions Court and

the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, convicting and sentencing the

petitioner for the commission of offences under Sections 465, 471 & 486

IPC and Section 58 of the Abkari Act, the present revision has been filed.

4.​ Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the

learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5.​ During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the

petitioner placed before me the order rendered by this Court in

Crl.R.P.No.4167/2006 filed by the first accused against the concurrent

verdicts of the Sessions Court as well as the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court, convicting and sentencing him for the commission of

the offences alleged in this case. As per the aforesaid order, a learned

Single Judge of this Court has found that the first accused was not guilty

of the offences alleged against him, and accordingly, acquitted the first

accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the 2025:KER:76179

observations of the learned Single Judge in Crl.R.P.No.4167/2006 hold

good in the case of the second accused as well. It is pointed out by the

learned counsel that the learned Single Judge has found in

Crl.R.P.No.4167/2006 that the search conducted by the Investigating

Agency was illegal, and hence the further proceedings initiated against

the accused were vitiated. It is also pointed out that there are clear

findings in the order dated 03.12.2020 in Crl.R.P.No.4167/2006 that the

prosecution failed to establish that the accused used forged stickers and

labels in the contraband items seized in this case.

6.​ On going through the order dated 03.12.2020 in

Crl.R.P.No.4167/2006, it is seen that the learned Single Judge of this

Court has arrived at the clear finding that the search which resulted in

the initiation of the prosecution proceedings against the accused in this

case was vitiated for non-compliance of the procedural requirements

under Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is also

seen from the aforesaid order that the learned Single Judge has

observed that there was no attempt made by the prosecution to compare

the original stickers with the alleged forged stickers in accordance with

law, and nor did the prosecution adduce any scientific evidence in that

regard. It is further observed in paragraph No.26 of the said order that 2025:KER:76179

PW24 was not an expert to prove original stickers and duplicate stickers,

and that in case original stickers had been produced, it would have been

a better proof to establish before the Court that the stickers affixed on

the samples were forged by the accused. As rightly submitted by the

learned counsel for the petitioner, the findings of the learned Single

Judge in the aforesaid order are equally applicable to the petitioner

herein, who is the second accused. It is also pertinent to note that the

second accused has been fastened with the criminal liability for the

reason he was the contractor of the shop concerned. Compared with the

responsibility of the Manager of the shop, the contractor stands on the

same pedestal with regard to the accountability for the items sold from

that shop. Therefore, it has to be held that the prosecution proceedings

against the petitioner herein are also liable to be held as vitiated for the

reasons stated in the order dated 03.12.2020 in Crl.R.P.No.4167/2006.

Needless to say, the conviction and sentence awarded by the courts

below upon the petitioner herein, are liable to be set aside.

In the result, the revision petition stands allowed. The revision

petitioner/second accused is found not guilty of the offences under

Sections 465, 471 & 486 read with Section 34 IPC, and Section 58 of the

Abkari Act, and he is acquitted thereof. The bail bond of the 2025:KER:76179

petitioner/second accused stands cancelled and he is set at liberty. If

any fine amount is deposited by the revision petitioner/second accused

during the pendency of the revision pursuant to any interim orders

passed by this Court, the same shall be refunded to the

petitioner/second accused in accordance with the rules.

(Sd/-) G. GIRISH, JUDGE

DST/14.10.25