Supreme Court Modifies Sentence in Abkari Act Case: Santosh Kumar vs. State of Kerala (2018)

Date of the Judgment: November 16, 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 1029

Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Indu Malhotra, J.

Can the Supreme Court reduce a sentence imposed by the High Court under the Abkari Act? This question was addressed in a recent case where the Supreme Court considered an appeal related to the quantum of sentence awarded under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The court examined the circumstances of the case and the period of imprisonment already served by the appellant to determine if an intervention in the sentence was warranted. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench of Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Indu Malhotra, with Justice Sapre authoring the opinion.

Case Background

In 2007, an incident occurred involving the seizure of spirit stored in 58 cans at a residential house and a car parked in the porch of the house. The appellant, Santosh Kumar, was among three individuals arrested in connection with this incident. The prosecution alleged that Santosh Kumar had rented the house where the illegal spirit was stored. This led to charges under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, which deals with offenses related to illegal possession of liquor.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Court in Palakkad convicted the appellant and another accused, sentencing them to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. The High Court of Kerala, in an appeal, upheld the conviction but reduced the jail sentence to three years, while maintaining the fine. The Supreme Court, upon appeal, limited its examination to the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, which penalizes offenses related to the illegal possession of liquor. Section 55(1) of the Abkari Act states:

“for any offence other than an offence falling under clause (d) or clause (e), shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to ten years and with fine, which shall not be less than Rs.One Lakh.”

This provision mandates a minimum fine of Rs. 1 lakh, while the imprisonment term can extend up to ten years. The court noted that while the jail sentence can vary based on the facts of each case, the fine amount must be a minimum of Rs. 1 lakh.

Arguments

Appellant’s Argument:

• The appellant argued that the High Court erred in not adequately considering the circumstances of the case while determining the sentence.
• The appellant contended that he had already served a significant portion of the sentence and was not involved in any other criminal activity.

Respondent’s Argument:

• The State argued that the High Court’s decision was correct and in line with the provisions of Section 55(1) of the Abkari Act.
• The State emphasized that the minimum fine of Rs. 1 lakh was mandatory and correctly imposed by the High Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether any case is made out on facts and in law for interfering in the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant (Accused No. 2) by the High Court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The court considered the following legal provision:

• Section 55(1) of the Abkari Act: This section specifies the punishment for offenses under the Act, including imprisonment and a mandatory minimum fine of Rs. 1 lakh.

Judgment

The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s order. The jail sentence was reduced to “already undergone,” considering that the appellant had already served approximately one year and three months. However, the fine amount was increased from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 1.5 lakh. The court noted that the minimum fine amount was mandatory under Section 55(1) of the Abkari Act. The court also took into account that the appellant had no prior criminal record and that one of the three accused was acquitted.

The court stated:

“In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is modified to the extent that the appellant is now awarded jail sentence of “already undergone”. However, so far as the fine amount of Rs. one lakh imposed by the Courts is concerned, it is modified and accordingly enhanced from Rs. one Lakh to Rs. one Lakh Fifty Thousand (Rs.1,50,000/-).”

The court further added:

“Failure to deposit the enhanced fine amount, the appellant will have to undergo one more year of jail sentence.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors, including the appellant’s period of incarceration, the fact that the incident occurred in 2007, and the appellant’s lack of prior criminal history. The court also considered that one of the three accused was acquitted. The court’s reasoning focused on balancing the mandatory fine requirement of the Abkari Act with the circumstances of the appellant’s case. The court emphasized that while the minimum fine must be imposed, the jail sentence can be adjusted based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court can modify sentences imposed by High Courts, especially concerning the quantum of sentence.
• Section 55(1) of the Abkari Act mandates a minimum fine of Rs. 1 lakh, but the jail sentence can be adjusted based on the facts of the case.
• Courts consider factors such as the period of imprisonment already served, the age of the case, and the lack of prior criminal history when determining the sentence.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant’s jail sentence be reduced to “already undergone” and that he pay a fine of Rs. 1.5 lakh. Failure to pay the enhanced fine would result in an additional year of imprisonment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while the minimum fine under Section 55(1) of the Abkari Act is mandatory, the court has the discretion to adjust the jail sentence based on the specific facts of the case. This judgment clarifies that the Supreme Court can intervene to modify sentences imposed by the High Court, particularly when there are mitigating circumstances.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Santosh Kumar vs. State of Kerala modified the High Court’s sentencing order, reducing the jail sentence to “already undergone” while enhancing the fine to Rs. 1.5 lakh. The court considered the appellant’s time served, lack of prior criminal record, and the age of the case. This decision underscores the court’s role in ensuring that sentences are proportionate to the circumstances of each case, even within the framework of mandatory minimum penalties.