2016 (4) TMI 793 - SC - Central Excise

Seeking modification in sentence order - Conviction under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act - Recovery of 450 litres of spirit which on analysis found to be 80.70% by volume of Ethyl Alcohol - Held that - considering the mitigating factor that the High Court interfered and reduced the period of imprisonment after noticing that the appellant has no criminal antecedents and also the fact that occurrence in question is of the year 2000 and the appellant has suffered agony of criminal trial and pendency of appeal for more than 15 years, the period of imprisonment is reduced from three years to rigorous imprisonment for two years. - Apex court disposed of the appeal

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against conviction under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, challenge to the sentence of rigorous imprisonment and fine reduction.

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court heard the parties and granted leave to appeal against the final judgment of the High Court of Kerala. The appellant was convicted under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, with the High Court reducing the sentence from five years of rigorous imprisonment to three years and the fine from &8377; 5 lacs to &8377; 1 lac with a default clause of six months' simple imprisonment.

2. Upon reviewing the materials on record and the judgment under appeal, the Supreme Court found that the High Court correctly affirmed the conviction. The prosecution had established all necessary elements of the offence, starting from the search of the appellant's car, which led to the recovery of 450 litres of spirit containing 80.70% Ethyl Alcohol.

3. The Supreme Court concluded that there were no grounds to interfere with the appellant's conviction. However, regarding the challenge to the sentence, the High Court had already reduced the imprisonment period due to the appellant's lack of criminal antecedents and the prolonged duration of the legal proceedings. Considering these factors, the Supreme Court further reduced the rigorous imprisonment period from three years to two years.

4. Despite the modification in the sentence of imprisonment, the amount of fine imposed by the High Court at &8377; 1 lac, along with the default clause, remained unchanged. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal with this adjustment in the sentence.

This detailed analysis highlights the issues raised in the legal judgment, the findings of the Supreme Court, and the modifications made to the sentence and fine imposed by the High Court, providing a comprehensive overview of the case.