LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act does not fix any upper limit for the fine but lays down that the fine shall not be less than Rs.1,00,000/-. Since the minimum amount of fine prescribed by the law is kept so high, the courts naturally give the default sentence of imprisonment for a substantially longer period. As noted above, the trial court has given the default sentence of one year which was reduced by the High Court to six months. We may note that in cases where poor people like the appellants who may only be the carrier of the arrack or who may be trying to eke out a living from the illegal trade are caught committing the offence, they are hardly in position to pay the fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and for them the default sentence becomes an additional period of incarceration. In a way, fixing the minimum fine at such a high amount, regardless of the countless possible variables in the commission of the offence under Section 8(1), leads to discrimination in favour of those convicts who have sufficient means to pay the fine and, thus, avoid any default imprisonment and the small fries for whom the default sentence would invariably mean an additional sentence of imprisonment. To our mind, it is desirable to leave the Court free in exercise of judicial discretion in the matter of imposition of fine. 14. In the light of the discussion made above, the appeal is allowed to the limited extent, as directed above.


                                                       REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                      CRIMINAL APPELLLATE JURISDICTION


                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1987 OF 2012
                 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.) NO.2025 OF 2012)


      SASIKUMAR & ANR.                            APPELLANTS


                                            VERSUS


      STATE OF KERALA                             RESPONDENT






                               J U D G M E N T


      Aftab Alam, J.


      1. Leave granted.
      2. The two appellants (who are accused Nos.2  &  3),  along  with  one
      Narayanan (accused No.1) have been convicted under Section  8(1)  read
      with 8(2) of the (Kerala) Abkari Act.   
They  were  sentenced  by  the
      trial court to rigorous imprisonment for three years  and  a  fine  of
      Rs.1,00,000/-  with  the  default  sentence  of  one   year   rigorous
      imprisonment. 
 In  appeal  the  High  Court,  though  maintaining  the
      conviction, reduced the  sentence  to  rigorous  imprisonment  for  18
      months and the default sentence  for  failure  to  pay  the  fine,  to
      rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.  The High Court also
      directed that the accused would be entitled to get the benefit of  set
      off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
      3. According to the prosecution case, on March 12, 2005 at about 11:15
      AM  the  accused  were  seen  coming  in  an   auto-rickshaw   bearing
      registration No.KL-03-F-3146.  The auto-rickshaw belonged  to  and  it
      was being driven by appellant No.2.  On seeing the police  party,  all
      the three occupants ran away leaving the auto-rickshaw  at  the  spot.
      On its inspection, the police found two (2) 20 litres cans  containing
      40  litres  of  arrack  lying  inside  the  auto-rickshaw  and,  thus,
      according to the police, the accused had committed the  offence  under
      Section 8(1) of the Abkari Act.
      4. The three accused  were  tried  by  the  Court  of  the  Additional
      District   and   Sessions   Judge   (Ad-hoc)   Fast   Track   Court-I,
      Pathanamthitta who, by his judgment and order dated June 22,  2010  in
      Sessions Case No.682/2006  convicted  and  sentenced  them,  as  noted
      above.
      5. The three accused came to the High Court in two  separate  appeals,
      being Criminal Appeal No.1338 of 2010 preferred by the two  appellants
      before this Court and Criminal Appeal No.2198 of 2010 submitted to the
      High Court as jail appeal on behalf of  accused  No.1  Narayanan.  The
      High Court disposed of both the appeals by judgment  and  order  dated
      August 4, 2011.  It  maintained  their  conviction  but  modified  and
      reduced their sentence, as noted above.
      6. The accused No.1 Narayanan apparently accepted the judgment of  the
      High Court and has not preferred any special  leave  petition  against
      the High Court judgment.  The other two accused, i.e., the  appellants
      are before this Court in the present appeal.


      7. We have heard Mr. R. Basant, learned counsel for the appellants and
      we have gone through the materials on record. We find  that  both  the
      trial court and  the  High  Court  have  meticulously  considered  the
      evidences led by the prosecution  and  have  rightly  arrived  at  the
      conclusion in  regard  to  the  appellants’  guilt.   Insofar  as  the
      conviction of the appellants under Section 8(1) of the Abkari  Act  is
      concerned, there is no scope for any interference and  we  uphold  the
      conviction of the appellants  as  recorded  by  the  trial  court  and
      affirmed by the High Court.
      8. Mr. Basant, however, urged before us to  take  a  lenient  view  in
      regard to the sentence awarded to the appellants.
      9. On the question of sentence, the High Court in paragraph 19 of  its
      judgment has made the following observations:-
           “It is relevant to note that at the time of registration of  the
           crime, first accused was at the age of 57 and accused Nos.2  and
           3 were at the age of 42 and 48 respectively.  Now six years  are
           over. Therefore, first accused will be at the age of 63,  second
           accused at the age of 48 and third accused at  the  age  of  54.
           The prosecution has  no  case  that  the  accused  are  habitual
           offenders.  Having regard to the above facts and the  mitigating
           circumstances, I am of the view that  the  substantial  sentence
           imposed against the  accused  requires  reconsideration.   Thus,
           according  to  me,  18  months  rigorous  imprisonment  will  be
           sufficient to meet the ends of justice.   While  confirming  the
           sentence of fine, the default sentence can  be  reduced  to  six
           months.  In the result, in modification of sentence  imposed  by
           the trial court, the accused are sentenced to  undergo  rigorous
           imprisonment for 18 months each and to pay  fine  of  Rs.1  lakh
           each and in default, each of them is directed to undergo  simple
           imprisonment for a period of six  months  instead  of  one  year
           rigorous  imprisonment  ordered  by  the   trial   court.    The
           appellants are entitled to get the  benefit  of  set  off  under
           Section 428 of Cr.P.C.”


      10.        We agree with the view taken by the High Court.
      11.        We would like to further observe that from the facts of the
      case it is evident that the appellants and the other accused  in  this
      case are not the real  men  behind  the  nefarious  trade  of  illicit
      intoxicants  in  the  State.   From  the  quantity  seized  from   the
      possession of the accused  and  the  manner  in  which  it  was  being
      carried, it is evident that the three accused  were  only  small  time
      operators in the illicit trade of  arrack  and  though  visible,  they
      constitute the weakest link in the chain of illicit trade  in  arrack.
      In those circumstances, we think a further reduction of  the  sentence
      would be quite in order.  We,  accordingly,  reduce  the  sentence  of
      imprisonment from 18 months, as awarded by the High Court, to one year
      and further reduce the sentence in default of payment of fine from six
      months to fifteen days.
      12.        Accused No.1, Narayanan is not before this Court presumably
      on account of poverty, as his appeal to the High Court was also a jail
      appeal. We find there is  no  distinction  between  the  case  of  the
      appellants and the case of accused No. 1 and, accordingly, extend  the
      relief granted to the two appellants  to  accused  No.1  Narayanan  as
      well.
      13.        Before parting with the record of the case, we  would  like
      to point out that
Section 8(2) of the Abkari  Act  does  not  fix  any
      upper limit for the fine but lays down that the fine shall not be less
      than Rs.1,00,000/-.  
Since the minimum amount of  fine  prescribed  by
      the law is kept  so  high,  the  courts  naturally  give  the  default
      sentence of imprisonment for a substantially longer period.
  As  noted
      above, the trial court has given the  default  sentence  of  one  year
      which was reduced by the High Court to six months. We may note that in
      cases where poor people like  the  appellants  who  may  only  be  the
      carrier of the arrack or who may be trying to eke out  a  living  from
      the illegal trade are caught committing the offence, they  are  hardly
      in position to pay the fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and for them the  default
      sentence becomes an additional period of  incarceration.  
 In  a  way,
      fixing the minimum fine at such  a  high  amount,  regardless  of  the
      countless possible variables in the commission of  the  offence  under
      Section 8(1), leads to discrimination in favour of those convicts  who
      have sufficient means to pay the fine and,  thus,  avoid  any  default
      imprisonment and the small fries for whom the default  sentence  would
      invariably mean an additional sentence of imprisonment. 
To  our  mind,
      it is desirable to leave  the  Court  free  in  exercise  of  judicial
      discretion in the matter of imposition of fine.
      14.        In the light of the discussion made above,  the  appeal  is
      allowed to the limited extent, as directed above.




                                            ………………….....................J
                                            (Aftab Alam)








                                            .………………….....................J
                                            (Ranjana Prakash Desai)
      New Delhi,
      December 4, 2012