Kerala High Court
Appu vs State Of Kerala on 21 October, 2025
2025:KER:78300
Crl.R.P.No.918 of 2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 29TH ASWINA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 918 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.04.2016 IN Crl.A NO.190 OF
2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, NORTH PARAVUR
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.04.2011 IN CC NO.620 OF 2006
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, ALUVA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT NO.5/ACCUSED NO.6:
APPU
AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. KORU, KAIMAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
MADATHIKKARA LINE, PULLOR KARA, PULLOR VILLAGE,
IRINJALAKUDA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.V.BOSE
SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN
SMT.NANDITHA S.
SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM. PIN-682031.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. VIJAYABHANU (SR)
SMT. MAYA.M.N-PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:78300
Crl.R.P.No.918 of 2016
2
ORDER
Under challenge in this revision petition is
the conviction and sentence rendered against the
revision petitioner under Clause 5A of the Kerala
Rationing Order, 1966 r/w Section 3(2)(d) and
Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities
Act, 1955.
2. The revision petitioner is the 6th
accused in C.C.No.620 of 2006 on the files of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Aluva. He
stood trial before that court along with other
accused, for committing the offences punishable
under Clause 5A of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966
r/w Section 3 and Section 7 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955
3. The prosecution case is that, on
25.01.2003, accused Nos.1 to 4, with the consent of
accused Nos.5 and 6, who were wholesale ration
dealers, transported ration wheat from FCI Godown,
2025:KER:78300
Chalakkudy in the lorries bearing registration
Nos.KLF 7949 and KRH 8397, for the purpose of
selling it outside, in Ernakulam District. It is
alleged that the ration wheat which was thus
intended for distribution in Thrissur District, was
transported to a flour mill at Mattoor in Ernakulam
District and while transporting the same, was
detected at a place called T.B.Junction in Angamaly.
4. The trial court, on an elaborate
appreciation of the evidence on record, found
accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 guilty of committing the
offence punishable under Clause 5A of the Kerala
Rationing Order, 1966 r/w Section 3(2)(d) and
Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act
and convicted them thereunder. The trial court
sentenced the 6th accused to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay
a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of
the Essential Commodities Act, with a default
2025:KER:78300
clause.
5. The 6th accused carried the matter in
appeal by filing Crl.A.No.190 of 2011 before the
Additional Sessions Court, North Paravur. The said
court, by judgment dated 12.04.2016, dismissed the
appeal.
6. Heard Adv.Vinod Madhavan, the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner and Adv.Maya
M.N, the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the
records.
7. The learned counsel for the revision
petitioner submitted that both the trial court and
the appellate court have not appreciated the
evidence in a proper perspective and has arrived at
a wrong conclusion of guilt against the revision
petitioner. He submitted that there is no
substantive evidence to show that the wheat
allegedly seized by PW8 is the very same wheat which
has been assigned from the FCI Godown, Chalakkudy
2025:KER:78300
Depot, by PW4. He also argued that the trial court
and the appellate court did not consider the
evidence of PW3 and the fact that the wheat thus
seized was released to him, which would clearly show
that the wheat allegedly seized is not the wheat
loaded from the FCI Godown. He further contended
that the offence as alleged by the prosecution is
not attracted, since there is no case for the
prosecution that the accused was found in excess
quantity than which is lawfully allotted to him.
8. Per contra, the learned Public
Prosecutor supported the impugned judgments and
contended that there are no grounds to interfere
with the concurrent findings of fact reached by the
trial court and the appellate court. She also argued
that the fact of detection of the offence in
Ernakulam District would clearly show that the
intention of the revision petitioner is to illegally
take away the wheat which was allotted for ration
2025:KER:78300
shops in Thrissur District.
9. In the instant case, both the trial
court and the appellate court have found that the
revision petitioner has violated Clause 5A of the
Kerala Rationing Order and thus has convicted and
sentenced him. Clause 5A of the Kerala Rationing
Order, 1966 reads as follows;
"5A. No person shall on or after the 17th of
August 1967 have in his control or possession any
ration rice or ration wheat [any product of
ration rice or ration wheat] in excess of the
quantity to which he is entitled for a period of
four weeks on the authority of his ration card or
other ration document issued to him or on his
behalf.
Explanation- For the purposes of this clause,
"ration rice" or "ration wheat" means rice or
wheat issued -
(a) from the depots of the Food
Corporation of India to authorised wholesale
distributors or authorised retail distributors;
or
(b) by authorised wholesale distributors
to authorised retail distributors or
establishments; or
(c) by authorised retail distributors
2025:KER:78300
to card holders or establishments."
The ingredients of Clause 5A of the Kerala Rationing
Order thus are;
(i) A person is authorised to possess ration
rice or ration wheat as per the ration document or
ration card issued to him.
(ii) The said person must be in possession
or control of ration rice or ration wheat in excess
of the quantity which is thus authorised under the
document.
If so, Clause 5A gets attracted only in cases where
a person who is duly authorised to possess or store
ration rice or wheat as per the document issued by
the authorities is found in possession of an excess
quantity of the articles, than as authorised.
10. Admittedly, in the instant case, the
prosecution has no case that the revision
petitioner/6th accused, who is duly authorised to
possess the wheat taken from the FCI godown,
2025:KER:78300
Chalakudy was found possessing an excess quantity
than as permitted. It is the case of the prosecution
itself, that the entire quantity of wheat loaded in
the truck from the FCI was found by PW8 when he
seized it. The prosecution allegation is only that
the attempt made by the revision petitioner/6th
accused, was to sell the wheat taken from the FCI
godown, (which was meant for distribution in ration
shops in Thrissur District) in a flour mill at
Ernakulam. The said allegation will not in any
manner fall within the ambit of Clause 5A of the
Kerala Rationing Order. Both the trial court and
the appellate court have failed to consider this
relevant aspect while finding the revision
petitioner/6th accused guilty. If so, I have no doubt
in my mind that the conviction and sentence rendered
against the revision petitioner/6th accused for
violating Clause 5A of the Kerala Rationing Order,
cannot be sustained.
2025:KER:78300
In the result, this criminal revision
petition is allowed as follows;
(i) The conviction and sentence of the
revision petitioner/6th accused under Clause 5A of
the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 r/w Section 3(2)(d)
and Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities
Act in C.C.No.620 of 2006 by the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court-II, Aluva and as affirmed by
the Additional Sessions Court, North Paravur in
Crl.Appeal No.190 of 2011, are set aside and the
revision petitioner/6th accused is set at liberty.
Sd/-
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
scl
