IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH
THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2014/9TH SRAVANA, 1936
CRL.A.No.1217 of 2005 (F) -----------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 443/2004 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), KASARAGOD.
-------
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
-------------------------
RAMAN, S/O. KUNHAPPA NAIK SALATHADUKA HOUSE, NEKRAJE VILLAGE KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
---------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
## **BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, J.**
-----------------------------------------------Crl. Appeal No.1217 of 2005 -----------------------------------------------Dated this the 31[st] day of July, 2014
## **JUDGMENT**
The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)I, Kasaragod, for the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five months and to pay a fine of ₹ 1 lakh and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence so passed by the court below, in this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant expired on 10-03-2009. The memo filed by the learned Public Prosecutor along with the report of the concerned Police Officer and the copy of the Death Certificate confirmed the death of the appellant on 10-03-2009.
3. The near relatives of the appellant did not file any
Crl. Appeal No.1217 of 2005
-2-
application for leave to continue the appeal. Since the sentence awarded by the court below is a composite one of imprisonment and fine, this Court heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and also carefully perused the records of the case in order to find out whether the conviction and sentence passed by the court below are legally sustainable or not.
4. The prosecution case is briefly stated as follows: PW1, the Sub Inspector of Police, Badiadka Police Station, and his party were on patrol at Nellikatta in Nekraje Village at about 4.30 p.m. on 09-08-2002. While so, PW1 received secret and reliable information that packet arrack was being sold at a place near the chicken farm on the road leading to Podipallam. Therefore, PW1 and the police party went to that place by walking after stopping their jeep at Nellikatta town. While so, the appellant was seen standing there carrying a plastic bag in his right hand. Seeing the police party, the appellant attempted to flee away. But, the police party
Crl. Appeal No.1217 of 2005
-3-
stopped him there. On examining the plastic bag carried by the appellant, 98 packets of 100 ml. each containing arrack manufactured in Karnataka were found. Therefore, PW1 arrested the appellant then and there. The packets containing arrack, the plastic bag etc. were seized by PW1 at 4.55 p.m. under Ext.P1 Seizure Mahazar in the presence of witnesses. PW1 had opened eight packets containing arrack and collected two 375 ml. bottles of arrack as samples and sealed them. The sample bottles were marked as '2A' and '2B'. Thereafter, PW1 reached Badiadka Police Station with the appellant and the properties and registered Crime No.211 of 2002 of that Police Station in respect of the occurrence. Ext.P4 is the FIR thus drawn by PW1. He had produced the properties along with Ext.P1 List of Property before the court. He had also submitted a Forwarding Note before the court for the purpose of subjecting the sample to Chemical Analysis. Ext.P5 is a copy of that Forwarding Note. Ext.P6 is the Certificate of Chemical Analysis issued from the
Crl. Appeal No.1217 of 2005 -4-
Chemical Examiner's Laboratory.
5. The investigation of the case had been conducted by PW5, the Additional Sub Inspector of Police, Kasaragod Police Station. He had prepared Ext.P8 Scene Mahazar in the presence of witnesses. PW1 had submitted the Final Report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kasaragod.
6. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session, Kasaragod, and, from there, it was made over to the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)I, Kasaragod. The court below framed a charge against the appellant alleging the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. He had pleaded not guilty of the charge. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5 and marked Exts.P1 to P10 on their side. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He had denied all the incriminating circumstances shown against him. The defence had not adduced any evidence. The court below, after considering the matter, found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 55(a)
Crl. Appeal No.1217 of 2005 -5-
of the Abkari Act and convicted him thereunder. He was heard on the question of sentence and imposed the sentence on him.
7. The appellant has raised various contentions challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him. According to the prosecution, the offence alleged in this case was detected by PW1, the Sub Inspector of Police, Badiadka Police Station. But, the investigation of the case was not conducted by him. After investigation by PW5, the Additional Sub Inspector of Police, Kasaragod Police Station, PW1 had submitted the Final Report before the court. The occurrence in this case has not taken place within the jurisdiction of PW5. But, it has taken place within the jurisdiction of PW1. 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 had been issued by the Government of Kerala which is S.R.O. No.321 of 1996. It reads as follows:
Crl. Appeal No.1217 of 2005 -6-
“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 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
Crl. Appeal No.1217 of 2005 -7-
Abkari Officers under their respective jurisdiction for the purposes of Sections 31 to 35, 38, 40 to 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 had been conducted by PW5. He was entitled to exercise jurisdiction only within the territorial limits of Kasaragod Police Station. The Additional Sub Inspector of Police, Kasaragod Police Station, does not have jurisdiction as an Abkari Officer within the territorial limits of Badiadka Police Station as the occurrence in this case took place within the limits of Badiadka Police Station.
8. A learned Single Judge of this Court in **Saji @ Kochumon v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KLT 471)** has considered the scope of appointment of Abkari Officers
Crl. Appeal No.1217 of 2005 -8-
## 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 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
Crl. Appeal No.1217 of 2005
-9-
jurisdiction only within the territorial limits of his Police Station. Therefore, PW5, the Additional Sub Inspector of Police, Kasaragod Police Station, had exceeded the limits of his jurisdiction by investigating the case on hand which was within the territorial limits of Badiadka Police Station. As the investigation was conducted by PW5, 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 a charge against the appellant 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, in the case on hand the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are liable to be set aside. The
-10-
Crl. Appeal No.1217 of 2005
appellant was entitled to be discharged in this case.
9. In the result, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below against the appellant are set aside. The bail bond executed by him shall stand cancelled. Since the appellant expired during the pendency of this appeal, no further orders are required.
Sd/- **BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE**
kns/-
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
