High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeAppeal allowed; conviction and sentence set asi...

RadhaKrishnan alias Sasi v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRA 1076/2006

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Babu Mathew P. Joseph
Judgment Date
2016-03-01
Court Decision / Holding
The appellant’s conviction and sentence under Section 55(a) Abkari Act are set aside. The appellant is discharged and set at liberty. Bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled, and any deposit made pursuant to the court’s order shall be returned.
Final Disposition
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant discharged; bail bonds cancelled; deposits returned.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • RADHAKRISHNAN @ SASI, S/O GOVINDAN NAIR, PARACKAL HOUSE SIVAN COLONY BHAGAM, VANDANMEDU VILLAGE

Respondents

  • State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • P. Chandy Joseph (Adv.)

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor, SMT. LISHA. M.G.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal appeal under the Abkari Act before the Kerala High Court challenging a conviction by the Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha, for offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. On 5-6-2001, police patrolling at Vandanmedu seized three 750 ml bottles of Majestic XXX Rum from the appellant’s house, leading to arrest and the registration of Crime No.100/2001. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 55(a) and acquitted him under Section 55(h). The central issue is whether the investigation by PW6, a Sub-Inspector of Police from Kattappana, could validly investigate a crime that occurred within the jurisdiction of Vandanmedu Police Station, given S.R.O. No.321/96 appointing Abkari Officers only for their respective jurisdictions. Relying on Saji @ Kochumon v. State of Kerala (2010(3)KLT 471), the court held that PW6 exceeded his jurisdiction; the investigation, cognizance, and trial were without jurisdiction, rendering the proceedings a nullity. In consequence, the appellant is entitled to discharge. The appeal is allowed, bail obligations cancelled, and any deposited amounts returned. The judgment underscores territorial jurisdiction limits for Abkari Officers and the necessity that investigations comply with those limits.”

Provisions of Law Cited

Abkari Act - Section 55(a)Abkari Act - Section 55(h)Abkari Act - Section 4Abkari Act - Sections 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 59Cr.P.C. - Section 313Cr.P.C. - Section 50Cr.P.C. - Section 227S.R.O. 321/96 (G.O.(P) No.69/96/TD, 29-3-1996)S.R.O.No.321/96

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • non est in the eye of law (jurisdictional principle)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that conviction under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act rests on an investigation by PW6, a Sub-Inspector of Police from Kattappana, designated as an Abkari Officer but only within his own territorial jurisdiction. The occurrence occurred at Vandanmedu under PW5’s jurisdiction, not within Kattappana, making PW6’s investigation void for lack of territorial competence. The cognizance and trial are thus void ab initio, and the proper remedy is discharge under Cr.P.C. (Sections 227, 50). The decision in Saji @ Kochumon v. State of Kerala (2010(3)KLT 471) is cited to demonstrate the narrow scope of Abkari Officer jurisdiction. Consequently, the entire trial is a nullity and must be quashed; the accused is entitled to discharge and restitution of deposits if any.

Contentions of Respondents

The State argues that the Abkari Officer framework under S.R.O. 321/96 authorizes Sub-Inspectors to act as Abkari Officers within their respective jurisdictions to enforce the Abkari Act; the notification contemplates jurisdictional limits tied to the officer’s police station while enabling investigation under the Act. The State emphasizes that the case proceeded through proper channels and that reliance on the Abkari Officer appointment is legally sound. However, the record later shows the court found the investigating officer exceeded his jurisdiction; the State awaits appellate clarity on the territorial ambit of Abkari Officers.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Saji @ Kochumon v. State of Kerala2010(3)KLT 471PositiveThe court relies on this case to interpret the scope of Abkari Officer jurisdiction under S.R.O. No.321/96, concluding that the Abkari officer’s jurisdiction is territorial and limited to the officer’s own police station.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against RadhaKrishnan alias Sasi v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2016/11TH PHALGUNA, 1937 CRL.A.No. 1076 of 2006 --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 230/2004 of ADL.SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA APPELLANT/ACCUSED:: ------------------------------------------ RADHAKRISHNAN @ SASI, S/O. GOVINDAN NAIR, PARACKAL HOUSE SIVAN COLONY BHAGAM, VANDANMEDU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:: ------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LISHA. M.G. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-032016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, J.** = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.A. No. 1076 of 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1[st] day of March, 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha, for the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rupees one lakh and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the court below, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. CRA 1076/2006 2 3. The prosecution case is briefly stated as follows: PW5, the Sub Inspector of Police, Vandanmedu Police Station, and his party were on patrol at about 1.30 p.m. on 5.6.2001. When they reached Vandanmedu, PW5 received reliable information that the appellant was keeping unauthorised liquor in his house for the purpose of sale. Therefore, after sending Ext.P6 Search Memo to the court, PW5 and his party searched the house of the appellant. During search, three 750 ml. bottles of MAJESTIC XXX RUM were found in a big shopper beneath a cot in the southern bed room of that house. Since the appellant had committed an offence under the Abkari Act, he was arrested by PW5 then and there preparing Ext.P7 Arrest Memo. PW5 sealed those bottles and seized them under Ext.P2 Search List in the presence of witnesses. Thereafter, PW5 and his party reached Vandanmedu Police Station with the appellant, properties and the records. PW5 registered Crime No.100 of 2001 in respect of the occurrence. Ext.P8 is the FIR thus CRA 1076/2006 3 drawn by PW5. The appellant, properties and the records were produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Nedumkandam. Ext.P9 is the List of Property and Ext.P10 is a copy of the Forwarding Note. Ext.P11 is the Certificate of Chemical Analysis issued from the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory, Ernakulam. The investigation of the case was conducted by PW6, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kattappana Police Station. He had questioned the witnesses and recorded their statements. CW10 had completed the investigation and submitted the Final Report before the court. 4. The learned Magistrate, after complying with the required legal formalities, committed the case to the Court of Session, Thodupuzha, and, from there, it was made over to the Assistant Sessions Court, Kattappana. Later, the case was recalled and made over to the Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha. The court below framed a charge against the appellant alleging the offence under Section 55 CRA 1076/2006 4 (a) and (h) of the Abkari Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty of the charge. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and marked Exts.P1 to P11 and MO.1 and MO2 series on their side. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances shown against him. The defence has not adduced any evidence. The court below, after considering the matter, found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and convicted him thereunder. He was found not guilty of the offence under Section 55(h) of the Abkari Act and he was acquitted of that offence. He was heard on the question of sentence and imposed the sentence on him. 5. The appellant has raised various contentions challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him. This Court need not go into all those contentions for disposing of this appeal. The offence was detected by PW5, the Sub Inspector of Police, Vandanmedu Police Station. CRA 1076/2006 5 The occurrence has taken place within the jurisdiction of PW5. The investigation of the case was conducted by PW6, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kattappana Police Station. The offence has not taken place within his jurisdiction. The investigation of a case of this nature can be conducted by an Abkari Officer notified under Section 4 of the Abkari Act. Such a Notification has been issued by the Government of Kerala which is S.R.O.No.321/96. It reads as follows: “ **S.R.O.No.321/96.-** 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 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 CRA 1076/2006 6 Officers, in the sections aforesaid. This notification shall come into force with immediate effect. _(G.O.(P) No.69/ 96 /TD dt.29-3-1996).”_ As per this Notification, the Government of Kerala appointed 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 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 Abkari Act and to exercise all the powers and to discharge all the duties conferred and imposed on Abkari Officers in the Sections aforesaid. Therefore, a police officer of and above the rank of Sub Inspector of Police appointed as an Abkari Officer can exercise jurisdiction as Abkari Officer only under his respective jurisdiction. Here, the investigation was CRA 1076/2006 7 conducted by PW6. He was entitled to exercise jurisdiction only within the territorial limits of Kattappana Police Station. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kattappana Police Station, does not have jurisdiction as an Abkari Officer within the territorial limits of Vandanmedu Police Station. The occurrence in this case took place within the limits of Vandanmedu Police Station. 6. A learned single Judge of this Court in **Saji @ Kochumon v. State of Kerala(2010(3)KLT 471)** considered the scope of appointment of Abkari Officers under S.R.O.No.321 of 1996 and laid down as follows: “Under the S.R.O. Government of Kerala thereby appointed “all police officers on 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” to be Abkari Officers under the respective jurisdiction for the purpose of Ss.31 to 35, 38 and 40 to 53 and 59 of the Act and to exercise all the powers and discharge of all the duties conferred in CRA 1076/2006 8 Abkari Officer in the sections aforesaid. Therefore, by notification issued by the Government in exercise of the power provided under S.4, a Sub Inspector of Police in charge of law and order and working in the general executive branch of police department is appointed as Abkari Officer, within his respective jurisdiction to exercise the powers provided thereunder. The respective jurisdiction could only be the jurisdiction of that Sub Inspector. It can only be within the territorial limits of his police station. Therefore, Sub Inspector of Police, Edathwa is the Abkari Officer empowered by the Government to exercise the powers under Ss.31 to 35, 38 and 40 to 53 and 59 of Act. Therefore, the officer who is competent to file a final report as provided under S.50 is only the Abkari Officer namely, Sub Inspector of Police, Edathwa or an officer superior to him.” In the light of the provisions of S.R.O.No.321 of 1996 as interpreted by this Court in this Ruling, a Sub Inspector of Police authorised to act as Abkari Officer can exercise his jurisdiction only within the territorial limits of his police CRA 1076/2006 9 station. Therefore, PW6, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kattappana Police Station, has exceeded the limits of his jurisdiction by investigating the case on hand which was within the territorial limits of Vandanmedu Police Station. As the investigation was conducted by PW6, an incompetent officer, the court below had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence alleged in the complaint filed based on such investigation. Consequently, the court below could not have framed charge against the accused as it was without jurisdiction. The trial which followed after framing the charge must be treated as _non est_ in the eye of law as it was done without jurisdiction. As the trial was conducted without jurisdiction by the court below, it cannot end either in conviction or in acquittal. The appellant was entitled to be discharged as provided under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are liable to be set aside. The appellant is entitled to be discharged in this case. CRA 1076/2006 10 7. In the result, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below against the appellant are set aside. He is discharged and set at liberty. The bail bond executed by him shall stand cancelled. The amount, if any, deposited by the appellant as directed by this Court shall be returned to him. This appeal is allowed. Sd/- **BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE** ks. True copy P.S. (Hr.Gr.)To Judge CRA 1076/2006 11