Holding

The burden of proof lies on the licencee, and the licencee remains liable for adulteration irrespective of the distillery's involvement.

Summary

The appellants, licensees of arrack shops, were convicted under Section 57A(iii) of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1967 for selling liquor adulterated with methanol. Samples taken from their godowns revealed the presence of the noxious substance, and the prosecution argued that the licencees had either mixed or permitted the mixing of the substance. The appellants contended that the liquor was procured from the Chittore Co-operative Sugar Mill ("Chiccopse") and that the distillery's involvement, not being disproved, should absolve them of liability. The Court held that, pursuant to sub‑section (5) of Section 57A, the burden of proving the absence of mixing or omission of reasonable precautions rests on the licencee, and that the distillery’s role does not exonerate the appellants. Consequently, the convictions and sentences were upheld; the appeal of appellant No.1 was dismissed and the appeal of appellant No.2 was abated due to his death.

Issues considered

The burden of proof under Section 57A(5) of the Kerala Abkari Act in cases of adulteration with a noxious substance.
Whether the involvement of the distillery supplying the liquor can absolve the licencee from liability under the Act.
Whether the form in which the liquor was obtained (barrels) versus sold (bottles) affects the licencee's culpability.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 320
Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958s. 78, s. 79

Subjects

Kerala Abkari Actadulterationnoxious substanceburden of prooflicencee liabilitymethanolexcise lawsection 57Acriminal appeal

Judgment

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 972

A RAVEENDRAN K & ANR,
v.
EXCISE INSPECTOR VADAKARA & ANR. ~
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1263 of 2001)
OCTOBER 21, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB
ALAM, JJ]

Kera/a Abkari Act, 1967: -~~-

c Ss, 57A(1)(iii) and (5) - Sale of illicit liquor- HELD: Bur-
den of proof is on the accused - Even if the role of Distillery
was in question, that would not absolve the accused of culpa-
bility under Act- Conviction and sentence upheld - Evidence.
The appellants were convicted and sentenced by the
D
trial court u/s 57A(iii) of the Kera la Abkari Act, 1967 to rig-
orous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.
10,000/-. The appellate court as also the High Court in re-
1

t-
vision petition upheld the order of the trial court. ~

E In the instant appeals, filed by the accused, it was
contended for the appellants that the liquor in question
was procured from a particular distillery against which
cases were instituted and it was found that role of the
,said distillery i.n supply of illicit liquor could not be ruled
F out; and that it was not the case of the prosecution that
the accused licencee had got the liquor in question from
any other source. The stand of the State was that, bur- f.
den of proof iri terms of s.57-A was on the accused.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
G
HELD: The burden of proof is on the licensee as is
evident from sub Section (5) of Section 57A of the Kera la
Abkari Act, 1967. Even if it is accepted that the distillery .f.
I
had any role to play, that does not absolve the appellants

H 972
RAVEENDRAN K & ANR, v. EXCISE INSPECTOR 973
VADAKARA & ANR.

from culpability under the Act. It is to be noted that while A
-+ the appellants were selling the liquor in bottle they got it
from the said distillery admittedly in barrels. Therefore,
the stand of the appellants that the liquor was sold in the
same form is no,t correct. In view of the factual position,
the appeal so far as appellant No. 1 in each case is con- s
cerned, stands dismissed. The appeal stands abated as
regards appellant No. 2 i.e. the licensee in each case be-
,, cause of his death. [para 5-6) (979-A, 8, C)
-f
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1263 of 2001 C
From the final Judgment and Order dated 30.5.2001 of
the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Rev. Pet. No.
558 of 2000 (8)
WITH D
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1264-1265 and 1266 of 2001
K. Rajeev for the Appellants.
G. Prakash for the Respondents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in these appeals
is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High
Court. Before the High Court Criminal Revision Petitions were
filed questioning correctness of the judgment passed by learned F
Sessions Judge Kozhikode upholding the conviction of the re-
vision petitioners for offence punishable under 'section 57A (iii)
of the Abkari Act, 1967, described as (Act 1 of 1077) because
the same was passed by the then Maharaja of Cochin on the
5th day of August, 1902 corresponding to the 31st day of G
Karkadagom 1077 and was extended to the whole of Kera la
as per Act 10 of 1967. Each was convicted by learned Assis-
tant Sessions Judge, Vadakara an_d sentenced to rigorous im-
prisonment for one year and to pay a fine ofRs.10,000/- each
with default stipulation. Lakshmanan N., the revisional petitioner H
974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A No. 2 in two of the revision petitions before the High Court and ,._
the petitioner in one of the petitions was the licensee of arrack
shops bearing Nos. 1 to 16 of Vadakara Range. Preventive
t-
officer PW 1 attached to the Vadakara Excise Range along
with Excise Guards inspected the god owns, and arrack shops ..
B of the licensee on 19.12.1988 and took samples for chemical ~
examination. The samples were taken from the stocks of 6520
litres of arrack kept in 65 barrels, in the presence of the appel-
lant No. 1. One of the samples collected from the godown was
given to the licensee on proper acknowledgement. The sample ')--
of chemical examination as per the regional Chemical Exami,.
c nation Laboratory, Kozhikode, revealed the presence of Methyle
alcohol, a noxious substance, the consumption of which is inju-
rious to health. On the same day at another godown sample
was collected where appellant Mohanan in Criminal Appeal No.
1265 of 2001 was the manager. During the pendency of the I
D ~
appeals before this Court, the licensee died. The samples were
taken in three bottles in each case. Samples labeled as A & B
were taken by the officer while bottle C was given to the sales- >-
man/manager as the case may be. Samples labeled A were -.
sent for chemical analysis and the report is dated 25.1.1989.
E The presence of noxious substance was found. On 19.5.1989
the compla!nt was filed.
2. The stand of the accused persons was that the liquor in
question was procured from the distillery Chittore Co-opera-
F tive Sugar Mill (in short the 'Chiccopse'). It was stated that ear-
lier cases were instituted against Chiccopse and it was found
-~-
that the role of Chiccopse in the supply of illicit liquor cannot be
ruled out. Various documents were relied upon for this purpose.
The courts below did not accept ~he stand and found the ac-
•
cused persons guilty and sentenced them as aforestated. - 'l-
G t-

·3. In support of the appeals learned counsel for the appel-
lant submitted that it is not the case of the prosecution that the
f--
licencee had got the liquor in question from any source other
than Chiccopse. It was submitted that the First Information Re-
H port was also lodged on the basis of the Board of Revenue's
RAVEENDRAN K & ANR, v. EXCISE INSPECTOR 975
VADAKARA & ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
+
letter dated 13.1.1999 and the charge sheet has also been filed A
against officials of Chiccopse.
4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submit-
ted that burden of proof under Section 57(1) or (2) of Section
57 A is on the licensee to prove that he has not mixed or permit-
ted to be mixed or as the case may be omitted to take a rea- B
i' sonable precaution to prevent the mixing of any substance re-
ferred to in the provision with any liquor or intoxicated drug. Simi-
lar is the provision in relation to possession of liquor or intoxi-
eating drugs with which some other substance is mixed. Sec-
tions 57 and 57 A of the Act read as follows: c
"57. For adulteration, etc., by licensed vendor or
manufacturer:- Whoever being the holder of a licence for
the sale or manufacture of liquor or of any intoxicating
drug under this Act,
_j,. D.
,.. (a) mixes or permits to be mixed with the liquor or
intoxicating drug, sold or manufactured by him, any
drug, other than a noxious drug] or any foreign
ingredient likely to add to its actual or apparent
intoxicating quality or strength, or any article prohibited E
3
[other than an article which the Government shall
deem to be noxious] by any rule made under section
29, clause (k), when such admixture shall not amount
to the offence of adulteration under Section 272 of
-I
the Indian Penal Code(Substituted for the words and F
figures "Section 248 of the Cochin Penal Code" by
Section 32(a) of Act 10 of 1967; or
(b) sells or keeps or exposes for sale as foreign liquor,
liquor which he knows or has reason to believe to be
country liquor; or G
~
(c) marks the cork of any bottle, case, package o~r other
receptacle containing country liquor, or uses any
bottle, case, package or other receptacle containing
country liquor with any mark thereon on the cork
H
976 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

t-
A thereof with the intention of causing it to be believed
that such bottle, case, package or other receptacle
contains foreign liquor when such act shall not amount
to the offence of '[applying a false trade mark under
section 78 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act,
B 1958]; or
(d) sells or keeps or exposes for sale any country liquor '\·
>-
in a bottle, case, package or other receptacle with
any mark thereon or on the cork thereof with the
intention of causing it to be believed that such bottle,
c case, package or other receptacle contains foreign
liquor, when such act shall not amount to the offence
of selling goods to which a false trade mark or false
trade descriptio'n is applied under Section 79 of the
Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958(substituted
D for the words and figures "marked with a counterfeit -~
·trade mark under Section 466 of the Cochin Penal
....
Code by S_ection 32 (c ) of Act 10 of 1967) ;
shall on conviction before a competent court, be punished
for ~acfl such offence, with imprisonment for a term which
E may extend to five years, or with fine which may extend to
fifty thousand rupees, or with both (The words "on
conviction before a Magistrate, be punished for each such
offence, [with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to six months, or with fine which may extend to three .,.__

F thousand rupees, or with both." substituted by Act 16 of
1997, w.e.f. 3-6-1997).
57A For adulteration of liquor or intoxicating drug with
noxious substances, etc:- (1) Whoever mixes or permits
to be mixed any noxious substance or any substance which
G
is likely to endanger human life or to cause grievous hurt
to hunian beings, with any liquor or intoxicating drug shall,
on conviction, be punishable
'
(i) if, as a result of such act, grievous hurt is caused t_o
H any person, witl:l imprisonment for a term which shall r-
!
•
RAVEENDRAN K & ANR, v. EXCISE INSPECTOR 977
VADAKARA & ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.)
-+
not be less than two years but which may extend to A
imprisonment for life, and with fine which may extend
to fifty thousand rupees;
(ii) if, as a result of such act, d~ath is caused to any
person, with death or imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than three years but which may B
/' extend to imprisonment for life, and with fine which
may extend to fifty thousand rupees;
(iii) in any other case, with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than one year, but which may extend c
to ten years, and with fine which may extend to twenty-
. five thousand rupees.
Explanation:- For the purpose of this section and section
578, the expression "grievous hurt" shall have the same
meaning as in section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 D
lt· (Central Act 45 of 1860).
(2) Whoever omits to take reasonable precautions to
prevent the mixing of any noxious substance or any
substance which is likely to endanger human life or to
cause grievous hurt to human beings, with any liquor or E
intoxicating drug shall, on conviction, be punishable,
(i) if as a result of such omission, grievous hurt is
caused to any person, with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than two years but which may F
extend to imprisonment for life, and with fine which
may extend to fifty thousand rupees;
(ii) if as a result of such omission, death is caused to
any person, with imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than three years but which may extend to G
imprisonment for life, and with fine which may extend
to fifty thousand rupees;
(iii) in any other case, with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than one year but which may extend
H
-
-91a SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

' +-
A to ten years, and with fine which may extend to twenty-
five thousand rupees. '
(3) Whoever possesses any liquor or intoxicating drug in
which any substance referred to in sub-section (1) is mixed,
knowing that s1;1ch substance is mixed w,ith such liquor or
B intoxicating drug shall, on conviction, be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one ---~
year but which may extend to ten years, and with fine
which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code- of
c Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974), no ,
person accused or convicted of an offence under \
subsectio·n (1) or sub-section (3) shall, if in custody, be
released on bail or on his own bond, unless

D (a) the prosecution has been given an opportunity to
~
oppose the application such release, and
-.,(

(b) where the prosecution qpposes the application, the
court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds
for believing that he is not guilty of such offence.
E '
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872)-
(a) where a person is prosecuted for an offence under
sub-section (1) ors section ,2), the burden of proving
that he ·has not mixed or permitted to mixed or, as 1-
F ~
the case may be, omitted to take reasonable
precautions to prevent the mixing of, any substance
referred to in that sub-section with any liquor,
intoxicating drug shall be on him;
G (b) where a person is prosecuted for an offence under
sub-section (3) for being in possession of any liquor t- ).

or intoxicating drug in which any substance refers to
in sub-section (1) is mixed, the burden of proving
that he did not know that such substance was mixed
H with such liquor or intoxicating drug shall be on him.
-~ ..,
RAVEENDRAN K & ANR, v. EXCISE INSPECTOR 979
VADAKARA & ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
-+ 5. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the State, A
the burden of proof is on the licensee as is evident from sub
Section (5) of Section 57 A. Even if it is accepted for the sake
of argument that Chiccopse had any role to play, that does not
absolve the appellar.ts from culpability under the Act. It is to be
noted that while the appellants were selling the liquor in bottle B
they got it from C_hiccopse admittedly in barrels. Therefore the
j stand of the appellants that the liquor was sold in the same form
is not correct.
6. In view of the factual position indicated above, the ap-
peal so far as the appellant No. 1 in each case is concerned, C
stands dismissed, while appeal. stands abated so far as the
appellant No. 2 i.e. the licensee in each case because of his
death. The appellant No. 1 in each case who were released on
bail pursuant to order dated 7.12.2001 shall surrender to cus-
tody forthwith to serve remainder of sentence. D
R.P. Appeals dismissed.