Balakrishnan v. Sub Inspector of Police, Atholi Police Station & State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD** **WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/7TH PHALGUNA, 1935** **CRL.A.No. 562 of 2004 ( )** **--------------------------** **SC 245/2001 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK (ADHOC)-II, KOZHIKODE** **APPELLANT(S)/ACCUSED::** **---------------------** **BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. ARUTHAN, THAYYULLATHIL MEETHAL HOUSE, KANNATHARA AMSOM, KANNUR DESOM.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN.** **RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE::** **----------------------------------** **1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATHOLI POLICE STATION.** **2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRSENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N.SURESH.** **THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **A.HARIPRASAD, J.** **------------------------------------------------** ## **Crl. Appeal No.562 of 2004** **-----------------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] day of February, 2014.** ## **J U D G M E N T** Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. Appellant was tried and convicted for an offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up in appeal. 2. Prosecution case stated shortly is as follows : PW1 was the Head Constable of Police, Atholi Police Station. On 16-01-2000, at about 20 hours, when he was in the General Diary charge, received a phone call informing that the appellant was selling arrack at a place called 'Kannur Angadi'. Therefore, he recorded the information in the diary and started to the informed place along with two constables. At about 20.25 hours, he reached at the informed place. They sighted the appellant in the torch light. He was possessing a plastic bottle in **Crl. Appeal No.562 of 2004 2** his hand. On seeing the police party, he jettisoned the plastic bottle and took to his heels. Though the Police party chased the accused, he could not be apprehended. On examination of the bottle abandoned by the appellant, it was found that it contained illicit arrack. 375 ml of arrack was taken as sample in a separate bottle and sealed the bottle from the place itself. A seizure mahazar was prepared. Thereafter on reaching the police station, a crime was registered. 3. In order to establish the prosecution case at the time of trial, seven witnesses were examined. Exts.P1 to P9 are the documents marked. DW1 is the defence witness. Ext.D1 is the document relied on by the defence. Material object is MO1. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the detection, search, seizure and all the formalities claimed to have **Crl. Appeal No.562 of 2004 3** been done by the prosecution are illegal. The glaring illegality in the proceedings were not considered by the court below and convicted the appellant. Admittedly, PW1 was working as Head Constable of Police at the time of detection and seizure of the contraband. The incident was on 16-01-2000. As PW1 got an information that the appellant was engaged in dealing with illicit arrack, he went to the place with his party. It is the case of PW1 that he saw the appellant carrying a bottle. On seeing the police party, he became perplexed and ran away from the place after throwing away the bottle. When it was examined, the police party understood that the bottle contained illicit arrack. PW1 stated about the sampling, sealing and affixing labels on the sample bottle. He himself registered the case against the accused. It is the prosecution case that CW12 was the Sub Inspector of Police, Atholi Police Station at the material time. Prosecution would contend that later he took up investigation **Crl. Appeal No.562 of 2004 4** and proceeded to the scene of incident and prepared Ext.P3 scene mahazar. Further, it is also contended that CW13, the Circle Inspector of Police, Balusseri also done a part of the investigation. But it is interesting to note that none of these witnesses had been examined at the time of trial. PW5 was working as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Atholi Police Station at the material time. He deposed that he was entrusted with the duty of investigating. But the crime was registered by PW1. Without going into other details, it can be seen that the detection and consequential investigation of the crime was done by incompetent officers and therefore on that reason alone the conviction should fail, contended the learned counsel for the appellant. In order to buttress this contention, following provisions in the Abkari Act was referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant. Section 3(2) of the Act defines 'Abkari Officer' in following terms : ## **Crl. Appeal No.562 of 2004 5** _“(2)_ _**Abkari officer** :- “Abkari Officer” means the Commissioner of Excise or any officer or other person lawfully appointed or invested with powers under Sections 4 or 5.”_ ## 6. Section 3(6) of the Act defines 'Abkari Inspector' as follows: _“(6)_ _**Abkari Inspector.** - “Abkari Inspector” means an officer appointed under section 4, clause (d).”_ 7. Chapter II of the Abkari Act deals with the 'Establishment and Control'. Section 4 in this Chapter is relevant for our purpose which reads as follows : _“_ _**4. The Government may, by notification in the Gazette :-**_ - _**(a) The Government may appoint an officer to**_ _**control the administration of the Abkari Department** :- Appoint an officer, who shall be styled the Commissioner of Excise and_ ## **Crl. Appeal No.562 of 2004 6** _who shall, subject to the general control of the Government, have Control of the administration of the Abkari Department and of the collection of the Abkari Revenue or of both;_ - _**(b) May appoint any person other than the Commissioner to perform all or any of his duties** :- Appoint any person other than the Commissioner of Excise to exercise all or any of the powers and to perform all or any of the duties of the Commissioner of Excise, subject to the control of the Government;_ - _**(c) May withdraw Abkari powers from commissioner or other officer appointed under clause (a) or clause (b)** :- Withdraw from the Commissioner or other officer appointed under clause (a) or clause (b) any or all of his powers in respect of the Abkari Revenue;_ - _**(d) May appoint officer to take action under Sections 40 to 53** :- Appoint officers to_ ## **Crl. Appeal No.562 of 2004 7** _perform the acts and duties mentioned in Sections 40 to 53 inclusive of this Act;_ - _**(e) And subordinate officers** :- Appoint subordinate officers of such classes and with such designations, powers and duties under this Act as the Government may think fit._ - _**(f) May appoint any Officer of Government or persons to act as above** :- Order that all or any of the powers and duties assigned to any officer under clauses (d) and (e) of this section shall be exercised and performed by any Officer of Government or any person._ - _(g) Delegate to any Abkari Officer all or any of their powers under this Act;”_ 8. It is made clear by the statement of law in Section 5 of the Act that the Government has power to prescribe the powers and duties under this Act to be performed by Abkari Officers. It reads as follows : ## _“_ _**5. The Government may, from time to**_ ## **Crl. Appeal No.562 of 2004 8** _**time, make rules** :- (1) Prescribing the powers and duties under this Act to be exercised and performed by Abkari Officers of the several classes; and_ _(2) regulating the delegation by the Government or by the Commissioner of Excise of any powers conferred by this Act or exercised in respect of Abkari Revenue under any law for the time being in force.”_ 9. In this context, S.R.O No.321/96 assumes ## importance. It is quoted herein : “ _**S.R.O No.321/296** .- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 4 of the Abkari Act, I of 1077 the Government of Kerala hereby appoint all police officers of and above the rank of Sub Inspector of Police in charge of Law and Order and working in the General executive branch of the Police Department and all Revenue Officers of and above the rank of Deputy Collectors to be_ ## **Crl. Appeal No.562 of 2004 9** _Abkari Officers under their respective Jurisdiction for the purposes of Sections 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 and 59 of the Act and to exercise all the powers and to discharge all the duties conferred and imposed on Abkari Officers, in the sections aforesaid._ _This notification shall come into force with immediate effect. (G.O.(P) No.69/96/TD dt. 29-03-1996.”_ 10. Now we shall consider various provisions referred to in the S.R.O quoted above. Section 31 of the Act deals with the power of certain Abkari and Police Officers to search houses etc., without a warrant. Section 31 says that Commissioner of Excise or any Abkari Officer not below such rank as may be specified by the Government or any Police Officer not below the rank of a Sub Inspector on reliable information and belief can **Crl. Appeal No.562 of 2004 10** conduct search in houses etc. without a warrant. Likewise, powers under Section 32 of the Act to enter and inspect place of manufacture and sale of liquor is also given to Abkari Officers. Here also, the empowerment to Police Officers is covered by S.R.O No.321/96. Section 40 deals with the procedure on arrest and seizure. There also, the powers vested with an Abkari Officer have been delineated. Section 50 of the Act says that every investigation into the offence under this Act shall be completed without unnecessary delay. Section 50(2) gives power to the Abkari Officer to forward a final report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C to Magistrate having jurisdictional over the matter. All these provisions have been specifically mentioned in S.R.O 321/96. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that detection, investigation and all matters in this case upto filing of final report was done by an incompetent Officer, going by the notification. **Crl. Appeal No.562 of 2004 11** 11. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor contended that Section 149 Cr.P.C confers power on all Police Officers to prevent cognizable offences. Section 2(h) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 also indicate the powers of the Police Officers, contended the learned Public Prosecutor. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, there is no illegality in an Officer below the rank of Sub Inspector of Police detecting the offence. It can be said that in the case of a chance detection this contingency may arise. Any Police Officer going by Section 149 Cr.P.C has power or rather duty to prevent cognizable offences. Certainly, the offences under Sections 55 and 58 under the Abkari Act are cognizable offences. But, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that even if the power of a Police Officer to prevent cognizable offence can be exercised in relation to offences under the Abkari Act, he can only apprehend the person involving in such an offence and the accused should **Crl. Appeal No.562 of 2004 12** be handed over to the Officer competent as per the provisions of the Abkari Act. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that the powers conferred on the Police Officers of and above the rank of Sub Inspector are additional tools in their hands. I am afraid, I am not able to accept that proposition. 12. The Abkari Act is a Special Statute. Certain acts visualized in the enactment are treated as offences by the provisions of the Abkari Act itself. There is a machinery provided by the Act in the form of Excise Officers to prevent, control and detect offences. It is evident from S.R.O No. 321/96 that the spectrum of Officers, who are empowered to deal with the offences under the Act, have been enlarged by the Government order. If we refer to Section 31 before amendment by Act III of 1106 M.E, it could be seen that the power given to Police Officers to search houses etc. were to Inspectors of Police. By virtue of the amendment, Sub Inspectors are also **Crl. Appeal No.562 of 2004 13** empowered to conduct search in houses etc. It is evident that only because of the conferment of such powers by the statute, the Police Officers of and above the rank of Sub Inspector could investigate offences under the Abkari Act. It is also to be borne in mind that the definition of 'Abkari Officer' quoted above will have to be considered while appreciating the powers conferred on the Police Officers to investigate the crimes under the Act. Analogy drawn by the learned Public Prosecutor from Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Suppression of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 are not applicable in this context. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, Prevention of Corruption Act prescribes certain set of Officers to conduct investigation into the crimes under the Act. It was also argued that no Officer other than the empowered Officer can investigate an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act in spite of powers conferred on the Police Officers by the Code of ## **Crl. Appeal No.562 of 2004 14** Criminal Procedure, 1973. I cannot agree with this proposition, because Section 4(2) of the Cr.P.C will have to be considered in understanding the procedure of investigation prescribed by Special Statutes. It is indubitable that Cr.P.C is applicable for investigation, enquiry and trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and that is clear from Section 4(1) Cr.P.C. Section 4 Cr.P.C is quoted hereunder for clarity : - _“_ _**4. Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws.-**_ - _(1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained._ - _(2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force_ **Crl. Appeal No.562 of 2004 15** _regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.”_ 13. Section 4(2) indicates that all offences under any law other than I.P.C shall be investigated, enquired into tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions in Cr.P.C, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner of place of investigation, enquiry, trial or otherwise dealing with such other offences. Abkari Act is indisputably other law visualized under Section 4(2) Cr.P.C. There are provisions relating to the manner of investigation. There are further provisions relating to the category of Officers empowered to detect and investigate an offence under the Act. Therefore, the principle in Section 4(2) will squarely apply in the matter of detection, investigation and enquiry into the offences under the Abkari Act. Hence, I am not able to agree ## **Crl. Appeal No.562 of 2004 16** with the contentions of the prosecutor that all the Police Officers whether named in S.R.O 321/96 or not have power to detect and investigate and to do all actions up to the filing of a final report. 14. In this context, learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of this court in _**Sabu v. State of Kerala (2007(4) K.L.T 169)**_ . Learned Single Judge considering the scope of S.R.O mentioned above held as follows : _“As per S.4 of the Abkari Act, the Government of Kerala is empowered to authorize an officer of the State to detect or investigate an offence contemplated under the provisions of the Abkari Act. The Government of Kerala had notified that all police officers above the rank of Sub Inspector of Police is empowered to discharge all the duties conferred on an Abkari Officer. In the light of S.R.O. No.321/96, PW3 who was only, a Assistant Sub Inspector of Police was not empowered_ **Crl. Appeal No.562 of 2004 17** _to detect or investigate the offence. If so, the evidence of PW.3 corroborated by the evidence of PWs.4 and 5 would not prove any case against the appellant. Even if he was empowered as per the provisions of S.2 (o) Cr.P.C., he cannot exercise the power conferred on an Abkari Officer.”_ 15. Therefore, I am of definite view that this case being one detected by a Head Constable and investigated by an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police cannot be said to be done properly and in accordance with the mandate of the law. Therefore on that score alone the prosecution has to fail. 16. Apart from that, learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is inordinate delay in sending the sample to the court. In that context, decision of a Division Bench in _**Ravi**_ _**v. State of Kerala and Another (2011(3) K.L.T 353)**_ was also pressed into service. It was held therein that no conviction can be entered against the accused in a prosecution unless it is proved that **Crl. Appeal No.562 of 2004 18** the sample which was analyzed in the chemical examiner's laboratory was the very same sample drawn from the contraband liquor allegedly found in the possession of the accused. Further, the Division Bench place reliance on a decision of this court in _**Dominic**_ _**v. State of Kerala (1989(1) K.L.T 601)**_ wherein, it was held that the sample should be produced before the court forthwith after seizure. In this context also, the prosecution has to fail. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Conviction of the appellant under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act is set aside. The appellant shall be set free, if not wanted in any other case. His bail bond shall be cancelled. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. **Sd/-** **A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.** //True Copy// P.A to Judge amk