Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in Kerala Abkari Act Case: Lalichan vs. State of Kerala (2019) INSC 13

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: January 7, 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 13

Judges: Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice R. Subhash Reddy

Can a sentence of one year imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,05,000 for possession of 4.5 liters of arrack and 3.750 liters of Indian Made Foreign Liquor be considered excessive? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in an appeal concerning the Kerala Abkari Act. The core issue revolved around the quantum of sentence imposed on the appellant for offenses under the Kerala Abkari Act. The Supreme Court, while upholding the conviction, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant. This judgment was delivered by a bench of Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice R. Subhash Reddy, with the opinion authored by Justice R. Subhash Reddy.

Case Background

On January 8, 2011, an Excise Inspector from the Peerumedu Excise Range conducted a search at the residence of the appellant, Lalichan. During the search, the authorities found 4.5 liters of arrack in a plastic can and 3.750 liters of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The prosecution alleged that the possession of this liquor was illegal and violated the Kerala Abkari Act. Consequently, Lalichan was arrested, and the contraband was seized.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court, the First Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha, found the appellant guilty under Sections 8(2) and 63 of the Kerala Abkari Act by its judgment dated November 22, 2013. The appellant was sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000 under Section 8(2) of the Act, and a fine of ₹5,000 under Section 63 of the Act. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 1701/2013 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The High Court, in its judgment dated January 25, 2017, upheld the conviction but reduced the simple imprisonment to nine months. The fine under Section 63 was maintained. The Supreme Court, while condoning the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition, limited the notice to the question of the sentence.

Legal Framework

The case involves the interpretation and application of the following sections of the Kerala Abkari Act:

• Section 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act: This section deals with the penalty for illegal import, export, transport, manufacture, possession, sale, or purchase of liquor or any intoxicating drug.
• Section 63 of the Kerala Abkari Act: This section deals with the penalty for offenses not otherwise provided for in the Act.

Arguments

The appellant’s counsel argued that the sentence imposed was excessive, considering the quantity of liquor seized and the circumstances of the case. The State, on the other hand, contended that the sentence was justified given the gravity of the offense and the violation of the Kerala Abkari Act.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court limited its consideration to the following issue:

1. Whether the sentence imposed by the High Court was excessive considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not rely on any specific cases or books in this judgment. The legal provisions considered were:

• Section 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act: Deals with the penalty for illegal activities related to liquor.
• Section 63 of the Kerala Abkari Act: Deals with penalties for offenses not specifically covered under the Act.

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after hearing both sides and considering the gravity of the offense and the quantity of liquor seized, decided to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant. The Court noted that the appellant had already been in custody for thirty-five days. The penalty imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court was, however, upheld.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to reduce the sentence was primarily influenced by a combination of factors, focusing on the period of incarceration already served by the appellant, the gravity of the offense, and the quantity of liquor seized. The Court aimed to balance the need for deterrence with the principle of proportionality in sentencing. The Court’s reasoning suggests a consideration of the individual circumstances of the case, alongside the legal framework.

The Court stated, “we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met if the imprisonment is reduced to the period, already undergone by the appellant.” Further, the court noted, “As it stated that he was already in the custody for thirty-five days, we deem it appropriate to modify the sentence, for the period already undergone.” The Court also added, “At the same time, we confirm the penalty imposed by the Trial Court, as confirmed by the High Court.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, emphasizing the importance of considering the period of incarceration in sentencing.
• The Court upheld the penalty imposed by the lower courts, indicating that the fine was appropriate for the offense.
• The judgment highlights the principle of proportionality in sentencing, where the punishment should fit the crime.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the penalty amount, if not already paid, should be paid within four weeks from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases under the Kerala Abkari Act, the Supreme Court can reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the accused, while maintaining the fine, based on the facts and circumstances of the case. This judgment does not establish any new legal principle but applies existing principles of sentencing and proportionality.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Lalichan vs. The State of Kerala provides a nuanced approach to sentencing under the Kerala Abkari Act. While upholding the conviction and penalty, the Court reduced the imprisonment to the period already served, emphasizing the need for proportionality and consideration of individual circumstances in criminal sentencing.