Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 826 (KER)

Biju v. State of Kerala

2012-09-05

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

body2012
JUDGMENT : 1. These appeals are filed by A1 and A2 respectively, who faced trail and were convicted for offence under section 55(a) of Abkari Act. They were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four years and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- each as fine and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 30.12.1999, while PW1, the Excise Inspector and other officials were on patrol duty and when they reached Maloor Government High School at about 12.30 p.m., they got reliable information that A1 was keeping possession of spirit in his house. After preparing the search memorandum and sending it to the Court and after complying with the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, they entered the house bearing no: EP VI/473 of Enadimangalam Panchayat. It is a two storied building. They searched all the four rooms situated in the ground floor but nothing could be recovered. They went upstairs. In the two rooms situated on the eastern side, they could not see any contraband articles. But in the corner of the western room they could find a plastic can of a capacity of 35 litres which contained 32 litres of spirit. There was another plastic can of a capacity of 35 litres which was seen to be wet having the smell of spirit. The fact that the liquid was spirit was confirmed by smelling and tasting it. As the Excise Officers were having sufficient experience in that field, there was no difficulty for them to identify the liquid as spirit. Sample was taken from the same. It was sealed and labelled in the presence of A1 who was present there and in the presence of other witnesses. The can which contained the remaining part of spirit was also sealed and labelled. Besides, they could also see 230 empty plastic covers each of the size 6 = x 4 = inches and a sealing machine named 'Naveena'. 3. According to the prosecution A1 used to take spirit in those plastic covers and get it sealed using sealing machine and sell it. The contention that those plastic covers were intended to be used for filling up chilly powder is seen to be only a figment of the fertile imagination of the accused, the learned Public Prosecutor submits. The contraband articles were seized as per Ext. The contention that those plastic covers were intended to be used for filling up chilly powder is seen to be only a figment of the fertile imagination of the accused, the learned Public Prosecutor submits. The contraband articles were seized as per Ext. P4 - the search list prepared for that purpose. Ext. P3 is the mahazar prepared by the Excise Inspector. Ext. P1 is the arrest memo and Ext. P2 is the notice of arrest. All the four contemporaneous documents would show that A1 was arrested then and there and the spirit was seized from that house and it was for keeping possession of the same A1 was arrested. 4. According to the prosecution, when A1 was questioned he disclosed the fact that it was A2 who supplied the spirit. A1 was produced before the Magistrate on 30.12.1999. The mahazar and other records were also produced on that day. 5. Based on the information given by A1, A2 was arrested by PW1 from a place near his house at about 6.00 pm on 04.01.2000. When A2 was questioned he gave a disclosure statement to the effect that the remaining spirit was kept by him in a nearby rubber estate of Ozhukupara Raju and accordingly, as led by A2, PW1 and others proceeded to that rubber estate. A2 after removing the soil from the eastern boundary of that estate, took out two plastic cans of a size 35 litres each. In other words, those two plastic cans were hidden and were in a concealed state and only as per the disclosure statement and as pointed out by A2, those two cans were taken out. One of the cans contained in it 32 litres of spirit. The other can was seen to be wet and had the smell of spirit. 180 ml of spirit was taken as sample and that sample bottle was sealed. Labels containing the signatures of the accused and witnesses were affixed on the sample bottle and also on the two plastic cans mentioned above. A2 was arrested on the spot. Arrest memo and seizure mahazar were prepared then and there. M.O.5 is the can which contained 32 litres of spirit and M.O.6 is the other empty can which had the smell of spirit. Mahazar was prepared for the seizure of those articles from the possession of A2. A2 was arrested on the spot. Arrest memo and seizure mahazar were prepared then and there. M.O.5 is the can which contained 32 litres of spirit and M.O.6 is the other empty can which had the smell of spirit. Mahazar was prepared for the seizure of those articles from the possession of A2. Exhibit P10(a) is the portion of the disclosure statement given by A2, pursuant whereto M.O.5 and M.O.6 were taken out after removing the soil. Evidence regarding the same was given by PW1, the Excise Inspector and it was corroborated by PW2 the Assistant Excise Inspector. The fact that two independent witnesses did not support the prosecution did not persuade the Court below not to accept the evidence given by PWs 1 and 2. Similarly, the evidence regarding the arrest of A1 and seizure of the contraband articles, as mentioned earlier, was also accepted by the Court below. 6. The main thrust of the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st accused is that serious prejudice was caused to the accused since two separate charges concerning distinct incidents relating to two accused were tried together and as such there was mis-joinder of charges. The learned counsel submits that in order to attract section 223 of Cr.P.C., both accused should have committed the same offence in the course of the same transaction. But here, as against A1, the allegation is that he was found keeping possession of spirit in his house, whereas, the case charged against A2 is that he was found keeping possession of spirit in the rubber estate mentioned above. It is contended that A2 was arrested and the contraband was seized after a few days and so the arrest of A2 and the seizure of the contraband were not in the course of the same transaction and since A1 and A2 were not found together keeping possession of the same, the case against both accused should not have been tried jointly. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that when A1 was arrested and questioned, he disclosed that the spirit was supplied to him by A2 and it was pursuant to the statement so given by A1, A2 was arrested. The fact that A2 was arrested in the light of the disclosure statement given by A1, would connect the link in the transaction between A1 and A2, the prosecution contends. The fact that A2 was arrested in the light of the disclosure statement given by A1, would connect the link in the transaction between A1 and A2, the prosecution contends. It is true that the statement given by A1, that the spirit was supplied by A2, cannot be admitted in evidence. But, at the same time, as it was the clue given by A1 to the detecting officer, there was nothing wrong in PW1 proceeding to arrest A2 and to ascertain whether he was having spirit and whether A2 had supplied spirit as stated by A1. Since A2 also gave such a statement, and it was pursuant to that disclosure statement, the can containing spirit and the empty can were taken out from the rubber estate, it cannot be said that there was no rational nexus between the two incidents. 8. The decision reported in State of Kerala V. Wolf Hang Kannad Finert 1995 (1) KLT 72 is not applicable to the facts of this case, since, in that case the trial Judge split up the charge and proceeded to try the case separately against the accused persons since it was found that the offence committed by the accused was distinct and separate. Later, the State filed a petition before the trail Court seeking joint trial of the two sessions cases. That was disallowed. It was in that context this Court held that the order passed by the trial Judge, to split up the charge, was not liable to be interfered with. Here, the accused persons did not raise their little finger when the charges were framed against both the accused and when a single trial was ordered and had against both the accused. 9. The decision in Mohanan V. State of Kerala 2007(4) KLT 408 was also relied upon by the learned counsel. There, in fact, it was held by this Court that even if the trial and charges are not in accordance with the Code, the findings entered by the trail court cannot be set aside as the charge was not challenged at the initial stage or at the trial stage. 10. There, in fact, it was held by this Court that even if the trial and charges are not in accordance with the Code, the findings entered by the trail court cannot be set aside as the charge was not challenged at the initial stage or at the trial stage. 10. Section 464(1) of the Code makes it clear that no finding sentence or order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any mis- joinder of charges, unless, in the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. The plea that as there was mis-joinder of charges there was failure of justice, has been advanced by A1 only now. It is pertinent to note that no plea of mis-joinder of charges was raised by A1 and A2 before the trial Court. The evidence obtained against A1 was not used against A2 nor was the evidence obtained against A2 used against A1. No failure of justice has, infact, been occasioned and as such the contention that the trial is vitiated is found to be devoid of any merit. 11. Ext. P1 is the arrest memo which contains the signatures of PW1 and the witnesses and also the signature and thumb impression of A1. The factum of arrest was intimated to a friend of A1, as evidenced by Exhibit P2 notice. It is also proved that 180 ml of spirit was taken as sample in a bottle of that size and it was sealed then and there. On that sample bottle, the label containing the signatures of the witnesses and of A1 were affixed. The two cans, sealing machine and the plastic covers were also sealed and affixed with labels. The descriptions of the same are mentioned in Exhibit P3 mahazar. Ext. P4 - search list also contains the signature of PW1 and the witnesses and also the signature and thumb impression of A1, which would prove to the hilt that those contraband articles were seized in the immediate presence of and from the possession of A1. 12. Much was argued by the learned counsel for A1 that A1 was falsely implicated. That house stood in the name of Divakaran, the father of A1. 12. Much was argued by the learned counsel for A1 that A1 was falsely implicated. That house stood in the name of Divakaran, the father of A1. There is evidence to show that Divakaran was working abroad at that time. Besides A1, his aged mother who was having some psychic problem/mental ailment and his elder brother who was running a provision shop, were residing in that house. It was contended that one Kumaran was also residing in that house. The evidence on record would show that only three persons, including A1, occupied that house at the relevant time. There is no case for the defence that the contraband articles were kept in that house by his mother or his elder brother. It is pertinent to note that these articles were recovered from the western room situated upstairs of that building. Therefore, it is unreasonable to contend that A1 had no control, possession or dominion over the contraband articles. 13. The possession, in fact, is manifested by the exercise of such exclusive control as the object is capable of. Possession means physical possibility of a person dealing with the property as he likes. The word 'possession' means legal right to possession as has been held in Heath v. Drown (1972) 2 All ER 561 (HL). In another case, Sullivan v. Earl of Caithness (1976) 1 All ER 844 (DC), it was observed that where a person keeps his firearm in his mother's flat which is safer than his own home, he must be considered to be in possession of the same. These decisions were followed by the apex Court in the decision in State of Punjab v. Ram Pal (2009) 5 SCC 565. Though that was a case dealt with under the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act, that decision is applicable here, since there also the question raised was whether the accused was in conscious possession of the contraband article. The word "conscious" means awareness about a particular fact. It is a state of mind which is deliberate or intended. Following the decision in Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Anil Kumar Bhunja (1979) 4 SCC 274, it was held by the apex Court in Madan Lal v. State of H.P. (2003) 7 SCC 465: "The expression 'possession' is a polymorphous term which assumes different colours in different contexts. It may carry different meanings in contextually different backgrounds. Following the decision in Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Anil Kumar Bhunja (1979) 4 SCC 274, it was held by the apex Court in Madan Lal v. State of H.P. (2003) 7 SCC 465: "The expression 'possession' is a polymorphous term which assumes different colours in different contexts. It may carry different meanings in contextually different backgrounds. It is impossible, as was observed in Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Anil Kumar Bhunja to work out a completely logical and precise definition of 'possession' uniformally (sic uniformly) applicable to all situations in the context of all statutes." 14. It is true that section 35 of N.D.P.S. Act is not identical to section 64 of Kerala Abkari Act. But when possession has been established, as mentioned earlier, it is for the accused to prove that it was not a conscious possession. He has to establish the same, because it is within his special knowledge as to how he happened to be in possession of the contraband articles having been kept in the room occupied by him. Whether there was conscious possession of the contraband has to be determined in the factual backdrop of each case. It cannot be contended that A1 in this case was not having power and control over the contraband article which was found in his room. 15. The seizure of the articles, from the room as mentioned above was in the immediate presence of the accused. The accused signed the search list and mahazar and also the labels affixed on the contraband article then and there. The existence of the de facto relation of control or dominion of the accused over the contraband article is indisputable. It would necessarily determine that he was in possession of the article in question. 16. The very fact that A1 alone was present in that house at the relevant time and that it was in his presence the house was searched and contraband articles were found out and the further fact that Ext. P4 -search list and the labels affixed on the contraband articles were signed by the appellant (A1), would leave no doubt that the appellant (A1) was in conscious possession of the contraband articles. P4 -search list and the labels affixed on the contraband articles were signed by the appellant (A1), would leave no doubt that the appellant (A1) was in conscious possession of the contraband articles. In such circumstances, presumption under section 64 of Abkari Act also would be available to the prosecution, which says that in prosecutions under Section 55, Section 55B, Section 56A, Section 57, Section 58, Section 58A and Section 58B it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved, that the accused person has committed an offence under that section in respect of any liquor or intoxicating drug, or any still, utensil, implement or apparatus whatsoever for the manufacture of liquor other than toddy or of any intoxicating drug, or any such materials as are ordinarily used in the manufacture of liquor or of any intoxicating drug, of the possession of which he is unable to account satisfactorily. Therefore, in view of section 64 of Abkari Act also it has to be held that A1 himself had committed the offence, since, no evidence to the contrary could be adduced by the defence. 17. Ext. P14 is the report of the chemical examiner which shows that the sample contained 95.27% by volume of ethyl alcohol which would fully support the case of the prosecution that M.O.1 plastic can, recovered from the possession of A1, contained spirit. As such, the court below rightly found the appellant (A1) guilty of the offence punishable under section 55(a) of Abkari Act. 18. As stated earlier, accused no.1 was stated to have told PW1 that the spirit mentioned earlier was supplied by A2. It was on that basis A2 was apprehended. It has come out in evidence that when A2 was arrested on 04.01.2000 at about 6.00 p.m., he was stated to have told the Investigating Officer that he had kept or concealed spirit at a particular place in the nearby rubber estate of Ozhukupara Raju and based on that statement and as led by A2 they went to that rubber estate from where A2 removed loose soil from a place near the eastern boundary of the estate and took out two cans of 35 litres, of which one contained 32 litres of spirit and the other can was found to be wet and had smell of spirit. 180 ml of spirit was taken as sample from the can which contained 32 litres of spirit. 180 ml of spirit was taken as sample from the can which contained 32 litres of spirit. That sample was sealed and it was affixed with the label containing the signatures of the accused and witnesses. On the two plastic cans also similar labels were affixed. Ext. P9 is the notice of arrest which was signed by the father of A2. Ext. P10 is the mahazar prepared contemporaneously. Ext.P10(a) is the relevant portion of the disclosure statement which is admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act. 19. The plastic can mentioned earlier was identified by PW1 and others, on which the labels as mentioned above were seen affixed. PW5 and PW6, the independent witnesses, though did not support the prosecution, admitted that their signatures were found in Ext. P10 mahazar. Ext.P15 -the chemical examiner's report shows that the sample on analysis was found to be containing 90.425% by volume of ethyl alcohol and as such the court below has rightly found that the sample was spirit. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is every reason to hold that the spirit, which was seized from A1 was supplied by A2, since, from the possession of A2 also spirit, of a quantity of about 32 litres, stocked in a similar plastic can of 35 litres, was found out. Since the aforesaid spirit was seized from the possession of A2, the court below has rightly found A2 also guilty of the offence punishable under section 55(a) of Abkari Act. 20. In the light of what is stated above, the verdict of conviction against A1 and A2 is only to be confirmed. The appellants were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each. 21. The learned counsel appearing for accused no.1 submits that A1 is a physically disabled person as one of his leg was afflicted with polio. It is also contended that the fact that the incident took place more than 12 years back, also may be considered to show leniency. 22. In the result these Criminal Appeals are disposed of as stated above. The conviction of the appellants is confirmed. It is also contended that the fact that the incident took place more than 12 years back, also may be considered to show leniency. 22. In the result these Criminal Appeals are disposed of as stated above. The conviction of the appellants is confirmed. In supersession of the sentence awarded by the Court below, the appellants are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 18 months each and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- each as fine and in default of payment of fine they will undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. The Court below will execute the sentence immediately.