Kerala High Court Found Jabbar Not Guilty in the Liquor Case

Must Read

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years...

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA)....

Follow us

On 19 August, Justice R. Narayana Pisharadi of Kerala High Court found Jabbar not guilty in the liquor case.

Brief Facts of the Case

On 27.06.2012, at the bus waiting shed near Mankavu Junction in Kozhikode, the Excise Inspector of Feroke Excise Range found the Jabbar (petitioner/accused), in possession of a plastic cover which contained nine bottles, each having the capacity of 180 ml, of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The bottles of liquor seized from the possession of the Jabbar had the label “For Sale in Pondicherry State Only”.  The trial court found the Jabbar guilty of the offence punishable under Section 58 of the Act and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

Jabbar filed a case before the Court of Session, Kozhikode challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the trial court under Section 58 of the Act. The appellate court confirmed the conviction as well as the sentence against the accused and dismissed the appeal.  Later Jabbar came to High Court.

Petitioner’s Argument

The petitioner argued that the prosecution could not, by establishing the aforesaid fact, prove that the petitioner committed an offence punishable under Section 58 of the Act.

Respondent’s Argument

The respondent argued that the accused did not offer any satisfactory explanation for the possession of liquor and therefore, the presumption under Section 64 of the Act that he committed the offence under Section 58 of the Act is attracted. The respondent also requested to draw a discretionary presumption that the liquor found in the possession of the accused was imported and then to raise the compulsory presumption under Section 64 of the Act to find the accused guilty of the offence under Section 58 of the Act and the court cannot adopt such a course. As it was noticed earlier, a presumption cannot be drawn on the basis of another presumption.

Court’s Observation

The court referred into the case Purushan v. the State of Kerala: 2002 (2) KLT 661 and it has been held – In Section 58, the possession contemplated is at the stage after import, export, transport etc. which had already taken place some time back at the hands of somebody else. What is the distinguishing factor is that for the offence under Section 58, the person in possession has knowledge of the fact that the liquor was unlawfully imported, transported or manufactured or is knowing that the duty, tax or rental payable under the Act had not been paid. The possessor therein is not directly involved in the process of import, export or transport and all that he knows at the time of holding possession of the liquor is the fact that the liquor had not come through the genuine source, but it had already been unlawfully imported, manufactured or transported.

The court also referred into the case Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. the State of Maharashtra: AIR 1998 SC 3258 and held that a presumption cannot be drawn on the basis of another presumption. A presumption can be drawn only from facts – and not from other presumptions – by a process of probable and logical reasoning.

Court’s Decision

Hearing both sides the court said, that the accused cannot be found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 58 of the Act only on the ground that the bottles of liquor found in his possession had the label “For Sale in Pondicherry State Only” and the revision petition is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/accused by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 58 of the Abkari Act, which stands affirmed by the appellate court, was set aside.

The petitioner/accused was found not guilty of the aforesaid offence and he was acquitted. The bail bond executed by him was cancelled and he was set at liberty. Fine amount, if any, remitted by him shall be refunded to him.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -