RAVEENDRAN K & ANR, versus EXCISE INSPECTOR VADAKARA & ANR.

RAVEENDRAN K & ANR, versus EXCISE INSPECTOR VADAKARA & ANR.

The Court held that the burden of proof is on the licensee as provided under Section 57A(5) of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1967. Even if the distillery had any role in supplying illicit liquor, the accused licensee remains culpable. The appeal was dismissed as regards appellant No. 1 in each case, while the appeal abated as regards appellant No. 2 (the licensee) due to his death.

Parties
Appellant: RAVEENDRAN K; Appellant: ANR; Respondent: EXCISE INSPECTOR VADAKARA; Respondent: ANR
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as regards appellant No. 1; appeal abated as regards appellant No. 2 due to death.
Legal Topics
Abkari Act, Illicit Liquor Sale, Burden of Proof, Adulteration of Liquor
Criminal Law Abkari Act Illicit Liquor Sale Burden of Proof Adulteration of Liquor

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RAVEENDRAN K

Appellant

ANR

Appellant

EXCISE INSPECTOR VADAKARA

Respondent

ANR

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the burden of proof under Section 57A of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1967, is on the accused in cases of sale of illicit liquor containing noxious substances
  2. 2 Whether the accused can be absolved of culpability under the Act by showing the liquor was procured from a distillery against which cases were instituted

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the burden of proof is on the licensee as provided under Section 57A(5) of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1967. Even if the distillery had any role in supplying illicit liquor, the accused licensee remains culpable. The appeal was dismissed as regards appellant No. 1 in each case, while the appeal abated as regards appellant No. 2 (the licensee) due to his death.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed as regards appellant No. 1; appeal abated as regards appellant No. 2 due to death.

Orders

  • Appellant No. 1 in each case, who were released on bail pursuant to order dated 7.12.2001, shall surrender to custody forthwith to serve remainder of sentence.
  • Appeals dismissed.