E.K. CHANDRASENAN ETC. ETC.  

v.  STATE OF KERALA  

JANUARY 17, 1995  

[KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]  

Constitution of India-Arts. 136 and 142-Competency to issue suo  

motu rule of enhancement of sentence-Plenary jurisdiction under Art.  136-Scope of power under Art. 142.  

Indian Penal Code, 1860--Sections 326/ 120-B, 107, 109-<:onspiracy  

A  

B  

c  

to supply spurious liquo,-Standard of proorSupply of liquor by a  firm-Adulteration of liquor with poisonous material-Motive to derive  wrongful gain-Concurrent findinw-Active participation of four accused-70  consumers died and 24 lost eye sights permanently-Award of maximum D  sentence of life imprisonment.  

Section 326-Grievous hurt-Supply of adulterated liquo,-24 persons  having lost their eye sights permanently-Hurt to be regarded as  grievous-Conviction u/s 326 upheld-Sentence of imprisonment for life.  

E  Section 328--Supply of adulterated liquor by a firm-Liquor con-

sumed-Injuries to consumers-Conviction u/s 328 upheld.  

Kera/a Abkari Act-Mixing spirit or water with arraclc-lllegal.  

10 persons were charge-sheeted for offences punishable u/ss 120-B, F  302, 272 and 328 r/ws 107 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, as weU as  some sections of the Kerala Abkari Act. The Sessions Judge acquitted  accused 5 to 8 and 10 of all the charges. Accused 1 to 3 and 9 were also  acquitted of the offences u/s 302 of the Penal Code as well as under the  Ahkari Act, but were convicted u/ss 120-B and 328 as well as section 107,  109 and 272 r/ws 34 of the Penal Code. The convicted accused filed appeals G  and the State chaUenged the acquittal of all the accused for the offence u/s  

302 and the acquittal of accused 5 to 8 and 10 for all the offences. The High  Court dismissed the appeals of accused 1 to 3 and 9. The State's appeal  was partly al.lowed by convicting accused 1 to 3, 9 and 10 u/s 326 r/ws 120-B,  107 and 109 and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprison- H  

277

278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R.  

A .ment for seven years. The 10th accused was fnrther convicted .u/ss 120-B  and 328 r/ws 107 and 109 as well as 272 r/ws 34, 107 and 109. For the offence  n/s 328, rigorons imprisonment for six years and a line of Rs. 10,000 and  for the offence u/s 272 rigorous imprisonment for six months and a line  of Rs. 1,000 were awarded. Accused l to 3 and 10 had filed these appeals  

B with the aid of Article 136 of the Constitution of India. This court after  bearing appeals felt that the case of enhancement existed, and so, rules of  enhancement were ordered.  

The presecutlou case was that 70 persons died after having con- sumed liquor from the shops and sub-shops which were catered by a firm  

C and 24 lost eye sights permanently and many other became prey oflesser  enjuries on the day of Onam; that in this firm initially accused 2 and 10  were partners, in which eight persons including accused l and 3 were  inducted subsequently; that the liquor licence had been obtained by the  firm in the name of accused l and 2 alongwith wife of the first accused;  accused 9, a chemist being an outsider entered i~to a conspiracy with the  

D other accused which ultimately culminated in this tragedy; that though  accused 10 withdrew from this partnership sometime before this occur- rence, be continued his relations with the firm; that accused\9 dealing in  varnish and paints purchased 23 barrels of methyl alcohol under fictitious  name and entered into conspiracy with other appellants for the supply of  

E 23 barrels of methyl alcohol to be mixed with arrack and water for  distribution to the consumers.  

The appellants alleged that the liquor having been supplied by the  firm, the accused could not be held guilty of any criminal offence for the  

F misdeed, even if there be any, of the firm inasmuch as there could not be  any vicarous liability in a case of the present nature; that the mere fact  that the accusd 1, 2, 3and10 were in active management of the firm (which  they disputed) would not be sufficient, in the absence of any evidence  relating to conspiracy, to bold them guilty of the offences in question; that  

G evidence of PWs 38, 39, 42, ;278 and 281, on which High Court principally  relied did not support the conclusion arrived at by the High Court and  that these witnesses omitted to name accused-10 when they were ques- tioned during investigation; that there was nothing to show about afcused  1 being a conspirator and that the only work entrusted to this accused  relating to the partnership business was to look after matters with the  

H Government as the financial control was with accused 2 and 10 and all the  

t

E.K. CHANDRASENAN v. STATE 279  

recoveries were made at the instance of accused 3; that no offence u/s 326 A  IPC was committed as the appellant had i;iot caused any hurt 'voltmtalily'  as the accused had no knowledge that the effect of the consumption of· Ute  adulterated liquor would be so injuriou~ as it proved to be ana· ail the  consumers were not adversely affected J!Dd secondly the hurt caused was  nllt grievous as for a hurt to be 'grievous' the same must be one which B  endangers life; that while hearing conviction High Courts do have this  power to suo motu issue rule of enhancement under the provisions of the  

)-

new Code of Criminal Procedure but !he 'same power would not be avail·  able io this Courflis this Court is not exercislilg any power conferred or  available uncler the Code, but under Article 136 which has conferred a  limited jurisdiction and is confined to the examinatiolj of legality or C  otherwise 1lf the judgment under appeal and that despite what is stated In  Article 142 issuance of a suo motu rule for enhancement would not be  permissible because that would be violative of Article 21 Inasmuch as It  would be unfair to the appellant who, having come to this Court for seeking  relier, ·would face peril in case the sentence comes to be enhanced after D  upholding the conviction and that would he a procedure not mandated by  law keeping In view the old age of accused 9 and· his financially weak  position, this Court might not enhance the sentence.  

The respondent stated that there was plethora of materials on record  to show that the five accused had acted in concert In adulterating the  liquor, consumption of which was responsible for the death and loss of eye  sights, apart from causing injuries; that the partners of the Orm were those  who were In charge of the management and accused 9 had entered into  conspiracy either Individually or collectively with them and as such a~ the  

E  

live accused were guilty of the offences for which they had been convicted F  by the High Court; that the power conferred on this Court by Article 136  Is of wide amplitude and Is plenary and that the ,power of an appellate  

. I  court Is normally co-extensive with that. of the lo~ court and so, if the  High Court could have issued the rule of enhancement, such a power would  be available to this Court, when it hears appeal from the judgment of the G  High Court, and that Article 142 of the Constitution would be available  for the purpose at hand, if this Court were to be of the view that to do  complete justice the sentence needs to be enhanced.  

Dismissing these appeals while enhancing the sentence, this Court H

280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R.  

A HELD : 1. This Court has power in an appropriate case to issne suo  motu rule of enhancement. Article l36 of the Constitution vests in this  Court a plenary jnrisdiction and the power so conferred can be exercised  in cases where the needs of justice demand interference. What is contained  in Article 142 wonld in any case provide snfficient power to this Court to  

B pass an order of enhancement if this Court were to be of the view that the  same is necessary for doing complete jnstice. [298-D-E, 299-B]  

2.1. Where an appellate authority Is conferred with power, without  hedging the same with any restriction, the same had to be regarded as one  of widest amplltnde and the power of snch an appellate authority would  

C be co-extensive with that of the lower authority. It Is apparent that the  appellate power available to this Court under ArticleJ36 Is not cir·  cnmscrlbed by any limitation. Being a court to whom appeals lie from the  judgments of the High Court, it would have the same power which is  available to a High Court, and in exercise of such a power the rule of  

D enhancement could have been Issued. [298-B-C]  

Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division, AIR (1958)  SC 398; Ebrahim Aboobaker v. Custodian General of Evacuee Property, AIR  (1952) SC 319; Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh, [1955) 1  SCR 267; Arunachalam v. P.S.R Sadhanantham, [1979] 2 SCC 297 and  

E Union Caibide v. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 584, relied on.  

Rengta Majhi v. State of Assam, [1988] 1 Gauhati Law Reports 481,  approved.  

Naresh v. State of U.P., AIR (1981) SC 1385; Suraj Bhan ~. Om  F Prakash, [1976] 1 sec 886 and State of Mysore v. C.N. Vijendra Rao, [1976]  

2 SCR 321, distinguished.  

G  

Narayanamma (Kum.) v •. State of Kamataka, [1994) 5 SCC 728,  referred to.  

2.2. In the instant case the liqnor having been snpplied by the firm,  the licence to vend liquor by the firm being in the name of accused 1 and  2, there being enongh evidence to show that accused 3 and 10 were taking  active part in the management, it was established that all the fonr appel- lants were taking active part in the management of the firm. The ventnre  

H undertaken had been described as 'huge profit making' by the High Court  

+

E.K. CHANDRASENAN v. STATE 281  

and without the knowledge, consent and connivance of the persons _in the A  management of the firm such a venture would not have materialised. No.  proof of conspiracy as such between the four appellants was strictly  necessary inasmuch as they being the partners had clear motive to derive  

wrongful gain from the adulteration which was undertaken on behalf of  the firm to commit the offences. The brain behind this sordid drama was B  accused 9. He was doing business and was dealing in varnish and paints.  He purchased 23 barrels of methyl alcohol. He gave the formula. In total  quantity or 200 litres or liquor, spirit was to be 2S litres, water so litres  and arrack 12S litres. The quantity supplied by accused 9 was about 20,000  litres, the price of which per litre W!ls SO naya palsa. This showed the  magnitude of Illegal gain aimed at inasmuch as SO naya paisa stuff was C  passed on as liquor which must have been sol.:. at a price many times more.  Methyl alcohol is virtually poison. The greed for huge money was thus writ  large in the abominable planning. The firm bad lifted only 3200 litre• or  arrack as against the sanctioned quantity or 5000 litres, but during this  

period it distributed 19,492.05 litres through various shops and sub-shops. D  The addition~! quantity or more than 16,000 litres ~onstituted either or  water or metbyle alcoho:. If the firm was only keen to supply more arrack  during the festival season for which permission was sought, it would have  at least lifted the full quantity or arrack sanctioned to it but it did not;  instead, it went for adulteration, and that too with such a poisonous  material which ultimately resulted in 70 consumers dying, 24 losing eye E  sights permanently and many others suffering minor injuries.  

[287-C, 288·E·D, G, 289·F·G·B, 290·A·B]  

3.1. The appellants by their nefarious activity, prompted only by lust  for money, sold such a brew which contained even a poisonous substance. F  If greed for money makes people so unconscionable, so unconcerned with  human happiness and make then behave like devils and to destroy human  lives, they have to be dealt with appropriately, sternly and with a steel heart  not yielding to any plea of softness OD any ground, Dot relenting to  discharge the onerous duty which falls on a court in such cases. The need  to rise to the occasion becomes great and imperative when it is noted that G  liquor barons have long been playing with destinies or many with lmpug·  nlty for on.e reason or the other, which bas encouraged them to indulge In  such. an activity without fear of law haunting them. This Is abundantly  clear from deaths due to consumption of spurious liquor in different parts  or the country. [301-E·G] H _.,

282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.  

A 3.2. So retribution Itself demands enha0cement. Deterrence lends  further support to the demand. Every one should strive to check such  atrocious acts. And the least this Court can do in the cases at hand is to  see that the maximum sentence visualised by our law makers is awarded  to all the appellants. There can hardly be more appropriate occasion than  

B the one at hand to award the maximum sentence. [302-A-B]  

4. So far as A·9 is concerned, as to the advance age this was a  mitigating circumstance, there exists an aggravating circumstance as well  the same being that It was this accused who was the prime mover, as wonld  be apparent from the facts on record. Thus the age factor has been  

C neutrallsed by the active roll played by this accused in the conspiracy. As  regard financial weakness of the accused which required providing of legal  aid In the courts below, the same cannot be said to have in any way  prejudiced him Inasmuch as his case was adequately taken care of by the  other accused who were well defended by eminent lawyers. Further, the  accused has now got assistance of senior counsel who is known for his legal  

D acumen. In so far as deafness is concerned, that Is not relevant for the  purpose at hand. Treating him differently from others would result In a  sort of discrimination as the role played by accused 9 was In no Wi'Y less,  really It was more, than other accused qua whom a case of enhancement  had been made out. Sentence or all the appellants and accused 9 for their  

E offences u/s 326 IPC enhanced to imprisonment for life.  [302-C,G-H, 303-C·D]  

5. As to the High Court setting aside the order of acquittal of accused  10, It had done so for good and cogent reasons and it did so after apprising  Itself of the reasons given by the trial court In disbelieving the witnesses  

F In question, and it duly met the llaws. Circumstantial evidence brought on  record had duly and sufficiently linked this accused with the offence In  question. The chain was complete to fasten him. As to when conspiracy csn  be taken as established, It is accepted that there can hardly be direct  evidence on this, for the simple reason that conspiracies are not hatched  In open; by their very nature they are secretly planned, and so, lack of  

G direct evidence relating to conspiracy by this accused has no slgnlllcance.  A perusal of the judgment of the High Court revealed that the investigating  ~ncy had made all efforts to shield accused 10, might be because of the  

political clout or any other reason and therefore, the Hig!i Court did not  feel Inclined to place much reliance on the omission by some or the  

H witnesses .ta llaDllag accused 10 during investigation, because where the

E.K. CHANDRASENAN v. STATE 283  

,. investigation is partisan and wants to shield somebody, the statements or A  the witnesses examined during investigation involving the concerned per- son would be manipulated. [292-B·C, 29l·A·D]  

6. In view or the concurrent findings or the trial court and the High  Court, there was no infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the High  Court regarding the _active participation of the four appellants in the B  despicable act undertaken by them. [293-C]  

7. Under the Kerala Abkari Act no mixture at all with the liquor as  supplied to the firm was permissible. In view orthis the acceptance of the  formula given by A·9 in mixing 'spirit' or water with arrack was Itself an C  illegal act. Secondly, in the present case what was mixed was not 'spirit'  but poisonous substance, as is methyl alcohol. The percentage of methyl  found in the liquor supplied by the firm being what was found to be, it had  to be held that the persons responsible for mixing had the knowledge that  consumption of the liquor was likely to cause any serious adverse effects.  The contention that all the consumers were not adversely effected cannot D  water down the mens rea required to bring home the guilt u/s 326 IPC. It  cannot also be held that for a hurt to be designated as 'grievous' the same  must be such which endangers life as the requirement of endangering life  mentioned In clause Eightly cannot be read in other clauses. In the present  case, as many as 24 persons having lost their eye sights permanently, the E  hurt in question bad to be regarded as 'grievous' because of what has been  stated In clause secondly of Section 320 IPC. Conviction of the five accused  u/s 326 Is upheld. [293-H, 294-A-B, 295-F]  

Govt. of Bombay v. Abdul Wahab, 1945 Bombay Law Reporter 990,  distinguished. F  

8. It was the liquor supplied by the firm to the shops and sub-shops  which was consumed and so, It had to be held that the consumers were  made to take the liquor supplied by the firm and therefore,.tbe conviction  u/s 328 IPC was rightful. [295-H] G  

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.  422 of 1990 etc. etc.  

From the Judgment and Order dated 7.3.90 of the Kerala High Court  in Crl A. No. 47 of 1986. H

284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 1 S.C.R.  

A G. R.amaswamy, U.R. Lalit, S.B. Sanyal, A.S. Nambiar, P.K. Pillai,.  Dilip Pillai, E.M.S. Anam, M.A. Firoz, K.M.K. Nair, Ms. Malini Poduval,  C.N. Sree Kumar and M.T. George for the appearing parties.  

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by  

B HANSARIA, J. Hooch tragedies have been taking heavy toll of  human lives throughout the length and breadth of the country. This has  been so for a sufficiently long period by now; and it could be well said that  practically every year the liquor barons, in some part or the other of this  vast country - Bihar is a recent example - earn easy money by ruining many  

C houses and making many persons destitutes. Many ladies have become  widows and many children orphans.  

2. Here is a case in which the festive day of Onam 1982 brought  disaster to many families inasmuch as the prosecution case is that 70  persons died after having consumed liquor from the shops and sub-shops  

D which were catered by the firm named "Bee Vee Liquors" and 24 lost eye  sights permanently, not to speak of many others who became prey of lesser  injuries. The joyous day of Onam (1st September, 1982) thus became a day  of disaster to hundreds of families. The magnitude of the calamity swang  police into action who, after close of investigation, charge-sheeted 10  

E persons for offences punishable under sections 120-B, 302, 272 and 328  read with sections 107 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as some  sections of the Kerala Abkari Act. At one stage, the Sessions Judge at  Ernakulam discharged the 4th accused and framed charg" against others  excluding one under section 302. This was challenged before the Kerala  High Court who confirmed the discharge of the 4th accused but directed  

F the Sessions Judge to frame charge under section 302 also. In the trial  which proceeded thereafter the prosecution examined 324 witnesses and  proved 433 documents. At the close of the trial, the Sessions Judge ac- quitted accused 5 to 8 and 10 of all the charges. In so far as the accused ·  1 to 3 and 9 are concerned, they were also acquitted to the offences under  

G section 302 of the Penal Code as well as under the Abkari Act, but were  convicted under sections 120-B and 328 as well as sections 107, 109 and  272 read with section 34 of the Penal Code. Various sentences were  awarded for these offences.  

3. The convicted accused filed appeals before the Kerala High Court  H and the State challe11ged the acquittal of all the accused for the offence  

t

E.K. CHAND RAS EN AN v. STA TE [HANSARIA, J.] 285  

under section 302 and the acquittal of accused 5 to 8 and 10 for all the A  offences. The High Court heard ail the appeals together and afte/a very  detailed examination of the materials on record dismissed the appeals of  

accused l to 3 and 9. In so far as the State's appeal is concerned, the same  was partly allowed by convicting accused l to 3, 9 and 10 under section 326  

read with sections 120-B, 107 and 109 and each of them was sentenced to B  undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The 10th accused was  

further convicted under sections 120- B and 328 read with 107 and 109 '<IS  well as 272 read with 34, 107 and 109. For the offence under section 328,  

rigorous imprisonment for six years and a fine of Rs. 10,000; and for the  

offence under Section 272 rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine C  of Rs. 1,000 were awarded, with the rider that the substantive terms of  imprisonment would run concurrently.  

4. Accused l to 3 and 10 have filed these appeals with the aid of  Article 136. These appeals were earlier heard by a Bench of Kuldip Singh  and late Yogeshwar Dayal, JJ., and after hearing them at great length the D  Bench felt that the case of enhancement exists; and so, rules of enhance- ment were ordered on 5.1.94. Learned counsel for the appellants addressed  us on the question of enhancement as well. In so far as accused 9 is  concerened, he had filed SLP(Crl.) No. 1190/90 which was dismissed on  July 31, 1990. Review Petition was also dismissed on August 28, 1991. By E  an order dated 10.11.94, he was, however, noticed by us to show- cause as  to why sentence awarded to him by the High Court should not be en- hanced, having noted that the maximum sentence awarded to him was  rigorous imprisonment for seven years and all the sentences were ordered  to run concurrently. Pursuant to the notice issued to this accused, he filed F  his written submission and we heard Sr. Advocate Shri Jain also on the  question of his acquittal as well, as mentioned in our notice : so also on  the question whether sentence awarded to him merits enhancement.  

5. Let it first be seen whether the cpnviction as awarded by the High  Court is sustainable. To decide this, what we shall have to primarily see is G  whether the five accused before us had acted in concert in committing the  offences for which they have been held guilty by the High Court. Before  examining this aspect, it may be stated as the High Court also had not  convicted any of the appellants under section 302 of the Penal Code and  as there is no appeal to this Court against the acquittal under section 302, H

286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.  

A we are not addressing ourselves, as it is not open to do so, to the question  whether the appellants were guilty under section 302. We, therefore,  propose to contine our discussion to the conviction as awarded by the High  Court.  

B 6; The licence to vend liquor being in the nat\ie of the aforesaid firm  (Bee Vee Liquors), it is apposite to mention that in this firm, which was  started on 133.1980, initially accused 2 and 10 were partners, in which  partnership eight persons including accused 1 and 3 were inducted sub- sequently. In the relevant year (1982-83) the liquor licence had been  obtained by the firm in the name of accus!!d 1 and 2 alongwith wife of the  

C first accused. In so far as accused 9 is concerned, he is an outsider and a  chemist who had, according·to the prosecution, entered into a conspiracy,  inter alia, with the aforesaid accused, which conspiracy ultimately cul- minated in the aforesaid tragedy. For the sake of completeness, it may be  pointed out that though accused 10 withdrew from this partnership some-

D time before the tragic occurrence, there is a finding based on materials on  record that he continued his relationship with the firm.  

7. The liquor having been supplied by the aforesaid firm, the prin- cipal agrument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that  

E the aforesaid accused cannot be held guilty of any criminal offence for the  misdeed, even if there be any, of the firm inasmuch as there can not be any  vicarious liability in a case of the present nature. Shri Nambiar appearing  for the State has fairly stated that he is not pressing, as he cannot, the  principle of vicarious liability to fasten the guilt on the appellants. Accord- ing to the learned counsel there is plethora of materials on record to show  

F that the five accused named above had acted in concert in adulteration the  liqnor, consumption of which was responsible for the deaths and loss of  eye sights, apart from causing other injuries. Shri Nambiar's submission is  that the aforesaid partners of the firm were those who were in charge of  the management and accused 9 had entered into conspiracy either in-

G dividually or collectively with them; and as such, all the five accused before  us are guilty of the offences for which they have been convicted by the High  Court. This result follow, according to Shri Nambiar, either because of the  conspiracy of the partners of because of the common intention on the part  of the partners. According to the counsel appearing for the appellants,  

H however, the mere fact that the accused 1, 2, 3 and 10 were in active

E.K. CHANDRASENAN v. STATE [H'ANSARIA,J.] 75',7  

management of the firm (which they dispute) would not be sufficient, in A  the absence of any evidence relating to conspiracy, to hold them guilty of  

the offences in question.  

8. Let it first be seen whether from the evidence as led in the case  the conclusion arrived at by the High Court that the four aforesaid accused  were in active management of the firm suffers from any infirmity.  

9. This aspect of the case presents no problem in so far as accused  1, 2 and 3 are concerned inasmuch as even licence to vend liquor by the  

B  

firm stands in the name of accused 1 and 2; and as to accused 3 there is  enough evidence to show that he was taking active part in the management. C  This question is really relevant qua accused 10. As regards him, the High  Court has mentioned about the following circumstances to show that  despite his withdrawal from the firm of Bee Vee Liquors before the  occurrence, he continued to take active part in the management :-

(i) operation of bank account upto 31.9 .82 (paras 105 and 110 of D  the judgment);  

(ii) the continued user of the jeep belonging to this accused by the  frrm of Bee Vee Liquors (para 109);  

(iii) dealing with all labour problems and service conditions of the E  employees of the frrm (para 111);  

(iv) joint management of the frrm at hand and Vypeen Llquour, in  which this accused was admittedly taking leading part, treating  them as sister concerns (para 111);  

(v) continuous money transactions between Bee Vee Liquors and  Cochin wines, another frrm of this accused (para 112); and  

(iv) over-draft applications made by this accused along with accused  2 on behalf Bee Vee Liquors in May, 1982 (para 114).  

10. The aforesaid circumstances do not leave any manner of doubt  

F  

G  

in our mind that accused 10 was taking active part in the management. The  submission of Shri Sanyal that this accused was a financer only and was  looking after financial matters cannot be accepted inasmuch as he was even  taking care of labour problems and service conditions of the employees of H

288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.  

A the firm.  

11. In the aforesaid premises, we have no hesitation in agreeing with  the conclusion arrived at by the High Court that all the four appellants  

were taking active part in the management of the firm. Shri Sanyal contends  

B that this by itself is not sufficient to hold this accused guilty of the offences  in question in the absence of any satisfactory proof relating to conspircy,  

as observed by the High Court itself in paragraph 122 of the judgment. The  

perusal of the judgment shows that after taking this view, the High Court  analysed the evidence (direct or circumstantial) to find out whether there  was conspiracy between the parties and it ultimately concluded in para-

C graph 145 that there was a conspiracy.  

12. In coming to this conclusion, the High Court principally relied on  

the evidence of PWs 38, 39, 42 278 and 281. Shri Sanyal has strenuously  contended that evidence of these witnesses do not support the conclusion  

D arrived at by the High Court. We shall advert to this submission later. Let  it be first stated that according to us no proof of conspiracy as such  

between the four appellants was strictly necessary inasmuch as they being  the partners had clear motive to derive wrongful gains from the adultera-

tion which was undertaken on behalf of the firm - to commit the offences.  E The High Court has dealt with this aspect in paragraph 102. The venture  

undertaken has been described as "huge profit making" by the High Court  and it has rightly said that without the knowledge, consent and connivance  of the persons in the management of the firm such a venture would not  have materialised.  

F 13. We may give some idea about the magnitude of the illegal act  which was undertaken. The brain behind this sordid drama was accused 9.  He was doing business at Thrippunithura under the name of 'Atlas  Chemicals' and was dealing in varnish and paints. He purchased 23 barrels  of methyl alcohol from Rekha Chemicals at Bangalore under fictitious  

G name "5'ynthetic Poly Hydride Thinner". Prosecution case is that he entered  in conspiracy with other appellants on or about 18th August, 1982 for the  supply of 23 barrels of methyl alcohol to be mixed with arrack and water  for distributionto the coru;umers. He gave formula as per Exh. P-359; It  would be of some interest to note the contents of this Exhibit which reads  

H as below:-

E.K. CHANDRASENAN v. STATE [HANSARIA, J.] 289  

. "Item Sprt Water Arrack Total %  

1 20 + 40 + 140 = 200 10  2 25 + 50 + 125 = 200 12.5  3 30 + 60 + 110 = 200 15  

No. l can usually be used daily  Taste and kick will be alright.  

No.2 may be used only if necessary  

No.3 may be used only if essential - Its taste has to be tested  specially. It shall not exceed  15% for any reason.  

Sprt = 25 lit. In this proportion pour in a drum, mix and  

Water = 50 lit. pack after one hour.  

Arrack = 125 l't Taste, kick etc. will be alright." 200 I.  

14. Though the aforesaid Exhibit speaks about "Sprt' because of  which a contention has been advanced on behalf of the appellants that what  

A  

B  

c  

D  

was ultimately mixed with arrack was spirit (to be more particular, rectified  spirit), the same is belied by the several vouchers which were seized by the  Investigating Officer, PW. 324, from the office of the firm. These vouchers  contain the name of 'SP'. What was indeed supplied was not spirit but E  methyl alcohol as would appear from the report of the Chemical Examiner  brought on record. Samples which were sent for examination revealed that  some of the barrels contained methyl alcoltol ranging from 67.83% upto  96.4%. In the house of accused 9, three loaded barrels were found which  contained methyl alcohol from 88.36%. It is not disputed that methyl p  alcohol is virtually poison. The quantity supplied by accused 9 was about  20,000 litres, the price of which per litre was 50 naya paisa As per the  afore-noted formula, in total quantity of .200 litres of liquor, spirit was to  be 25 litres, water 50 litres and arrack 125 litres as per item 2. (The  combination would be different if the preparation wa5 to be prepared  according to item 1 or 3). This shows the magnitude of the illegal gain G  aimed at inasmuch as 50 naya paisa stuff was passed on as liquor which  must have been sold at a price many times more. The greed for huge money  is thus writ large in the abominable planning.  

15. Another aspect of the case makes the criminality apparent. The H

290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.  

A firm had lifted only 3200 litres of arrack from 1.8.92 upto 2.9.82 as against  the sanctioned quantity of 5,000 litres, but during this period it dist~ibuted  19,492.05 litres through various shops and sub-shops. The additional quan- tity of more than 16,000 litres constituted either of water or of methyl  alcohol. If the firm was only keen to supply more arrack during the festival  season for which permission was sought, it would have at least lifted the  

B full quantity of arrack sanctioned to it but it did not; insteed, it went for  adulteration, and that too with such a poisonous material which ultimately  resulted in 70 consumers dying, 24 loosing eye sights permanently and many  others suttering minor injuries.  

C 16. Nothing more than the above is required to hold that the liquor  barons were out to earn profit at the cost of human lives. The magnitude  of the profit aimed at fully satisfies us that there was meeting of mind in  so far as the persons in the management of the'fum are concerned to  undertake the highly illegal act. As, however, the High Court has gone into  

D the question of conspiracy and has relied on evidence of aforesaid PW s to  conclude that there was a conspiracy between the aforesaid persons, let  the contention of Shir Sanyal noted above be dealt with now.  

17. The High Court having dealt with the evidence of these witnesses  at some length from paras 138 to 144, we do not propose to note what  

· E these witnesses had stated. Instead, we would deal with the criticism  advanced by Shri Sanyal. The main attack of Shri Sanyal is about omission  of the name of accused 10 by these witnesses when they were questioned  during investigation. Not that all the witnesses had omitted to name this  accused, because PW. 39, who was an employee of a shop for 12 years, had  

F named this accused, so had PW. 278. As regards those witnesses who had  omitted to name, the High Court has given cogent reason as to why despite  omission found in their statements as recorded by PW. 324 (the Investigat- ing Officer) their evidence should be accepted. Not only this the High  Court has dealt with the reasons given by the trial court for disbelieving  these witnesses and has adequately met the reasons. We do r;ot propose  

G to traverse this ground over again as we are fully satisfied about this part  of High Court's judgment.  

18. As, however, Shri Sanyal has taken pains to highlight the omission  by some of the witnesses in naming accused 10 during investigation, we  

H propose to say a few words regarding this submission. A perusal of the

E.K CHAND RAS EN AN v. ST A TE [HANSi\IUA. J. J 291  

~ judgment of the High Court leaves no manner of doubt that the investigat- A  ing agency had made all efforts to shield accused 10; may be because of  the political clout or any other reason. This would be apparent from the  fact that though this accused was being shown absconding by the police,  

he was in constant touch with the police and was having meeting with police  who advised him not to surrender because if he did so he ran the risk of B  his anticipatory bail being rejected. Not only this, the High Court has stated  in paragraph 190 that the police was giving secret information to this  accused and ultimately they went in for a 'thrilling arrest' at the cost of  huge expenditure to the State, as after giving out that this accused is  absconding, his photos were published in newspapers offering reward,  which drama ultimately ended at Delhi. It would be a fitting finale that the C  last act of the judicial exercise as regards of this accused also ends at Delhi.  

19. It is because of the aforesaid that the High Court did not feel  inclined to place much reliance on the omissions, because where the  investigation is partisan and wants to shield somebody, the statements of D  witnesses examined during investigation involving the concerned person  would be manipulated. The High Court, therefore, in some cases even  perused the police diary and was satisfied that the allegation of the omis- sion was not correct. May we point out that section 172(2) of the Code of  Criminal Procedure permits any criminal court to send for police diaries  and to use them to aid it in any enquiry or trial. Much cannot, therefore, E  be allowed to be made about omission of the name of this accused in the  statement of some of the aforesaid PWs as recorded by the Investigation  Officer.  

20. The aforesaid is all that is required to be said to deal with the F  contentions advanced by Shri Sanyal on behalf of accused 10 when appeal  was being heard in Court. In the written submissions filed subsequently,  '"''hat has been done is primarily to reiterate the points urged in open court  by citing some decisions to support the contentions. The cases referred  relate to legal propositions as to when conviction can be founded on  circumstantial evidence, when can vicarious liability be fastened in a G  criminal matter, when can order of acqquittal be set aside by an appellate  court and when can conspiracy be held as established. We do not think it  necessary to deal with the referred decisions, as the- view we have taken is  based on facts before us and the conclusions arrived at by us do not militate  against any legal proposition propounded in the decisions. May we state H

292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.  

A that the. doctrine of vicarious liability was not pressed into service by Shri  Nambiar himself; and so, we have placed no reliance on the same to uphold  the conviction of this appellant or, for that matter, any other appellant. As  to the High Court setting aside the order of acquittal of accused 10, the  abovenoted discussion shows that it had done so for good and cogent  

B reasons; and "hat is more, it did so after apprising itself of the reasons  given by the trial court in disbelieving the witnesses in question, and it duly  met the flaws pointed out. As regards circumstantial evidence, it is clear  that those brought on record have duly and sufficiently linked this accused  with the offence in question. The chain is complete to fasten him. As to  when· conspiracy can be taken as established, it has been accepted in the  

C decisions relied on by Shri Sanyal, that there can hardly be direct evidence ,  on this, for the simple reason that conspiracies are not hatched in open;  by their very nature they are secretly planned; and so, lack of direct  evidence relating to consipiracy by this accused has no significance.  

D 21. Insofar as other appellants are concerned, not much is required  to be said by us in view of the concurrent findings of the trial court and  the High Court about their involvement. As, however, Shri Lalit appearing  for accused 1 made efforts, and sincere efforts at that, to persuade us to  disagree with the finding relating to this accused being hand in glove with  others, let us deal with the submissions of Shri Lalit. He contends that there  

E is nothing to show about this accused being a conspirator inasmuch as in  the meeting which had been taken place on or about 18.8.1982 with accused  

• 9 this accused was not present. This is not material because conspiracy can  be proved even by circumstantial evidence; and it is really this type of  evidence which is normally available to prove conspiracy. The further  submission of Shri Lalit is that the only work entrusted to this accused  

F relating to the partnership business was to look after matters with the  Government. The fmancial control was with accused 2 and 10 and all the  recoveries were made at the instan~e of accused 3, states ~hri Lalit. These  facts do not militate against the conclusion arrived at by the courts below  that this accused was thick and thin with others. The High Court has  

G summed up its views qua him in paragraph 185 of the judgment. Among  the facts mentioned is that it was he who was one of the bidders for 1982·83  

· and it was he who had applied for permission for keepting arrack shops  open till night in the festival season from 3.8.82 to 16.8.82 and from J?.8.82  to 5.9.82.  

H 22. As regards accused 2, Shri Nair refers us to the grounds taken in

E.K.CHANDRASENANv. STATE[HANSARIA,J.) 293  

Criminal Appeals 563-64/90 filed by him which are from pages 127 to 132. A  We have gone through these grounds and these are on the question as to  when on the basis of circumstantial evidence a person can be found guilty.  These grounds also say that there can be no vicarious liability in the case  of the present nature. Something has been said about the evidence of PWs  260 and 322, who had done chemical examination. These have nothing to  do with c;riminality or involvement of this accused. Qua accused 3, Shri  Anam has only urged that what had been purchased by him was rectified  

. sprit and not methyl alcohol. The least said the better about this submis- sion, as it is wholly misconceived, which is apparent from what we have  noted above-about recoveries made and their composition as found on  chemical analysis.  

23. We, therefore, conclude by stating that we find no infirmity in the  conclusion arrived at by the High Court regarding the active participation  of the four appellants in the despicable act undertaken by them.  

B  

c  

24. What is required to be seen further is whether the conviction of D  these appellants under sections 326, 328 and 272 is tenable or not. So far  as section 272 is concerned, there is no dispute because adulteration  apparently there was. The learned counsel for the appellants have taken  pains to convince us that no offence under section 326 specially was  committed. Though some submissions had been advanced about non-ap- E  plicability of Section 328 also, it is apparent that if we would be satisfied  about applicability of sections 326, 328 would apply proprio vi gore.  

25. According to Shri Sanyal, mischief of section 326 would n~t be  attracted for two reasons. First, the appellants had not caused any hurt  "voluntarily". Secondly, the hurt caused, in any case, was not "grievous". F  

26. To sustain the first submission, Shri Sanyal refers us to the  definition of "voluntarily'' as given in section 39 of the Penal Code which,  inter a/ia, says that a person is said to cause an effect voluntarily when he  knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it. Learned counsel  contends that the accused persons had no knowledge that the effect of the G  consnmption of the adulterated liquor would be so injurious as it proved  to be. This submission cannot be accepted because the aforesaid  knowledge can well be imputed for two reasons. First, under the Kerala  Abkari Act no mixture at all with the liquor as supplied to the firm was  permissible. This legal position is not disputed before us. In view of this, H

294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.  

A the acceptance of the formula given by A-9 in mixing "'spirit" or waler with  arrack was itself an illegal act. Secondly, in the present case what was mixed  was not ''spirit" but, as already noted, poisonuous substance, iJs is methyl  alcohol. The percentage of methyl found in the liquor supplied by the firm  being what was found to be, it has to be held that the persons responsible  

for mixing had thl' knowledge that consumption of the liquor was likely to  B cause very serious adverse effects. The contention that all the consumers  

were not adversely effected .cannot water down the mens rea required to  bring home the guilt under section 326.  

27. The next submission of Shri Sanyal for non-applicability of section  C 326 is that the hurt caused was not grievous. To satisfy us in this regard,  

our attention is invited to the definition of "grievous hurt" as given in  section 320, according to which the following kinds of hurt only are  designated as grievous :-

D  

E  

First : Emasaculation.  

Secondly : Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.  

Thirdly : Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.  

Fourthly : Privation of any member or joint.  

Fifthly : Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any  member or joint.  

Sixthly : Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.  

F Seventhly : Fracture of dislocation of a bone or tooth.  

G  

Eighthly : Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the  sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain,  or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.  

28. Shri Sanyal urges that for a hurt to be "grievous" the same must  be one which endangers life. The background of making this submission is  that the High Court took the view that the accused had no knowledge that  the adulteration caused by them would endanger life because of which the  accused persons were not convicted under section 302. According to us,  

H the High Court was not correct in arriving at this finding; but as there is

E.K. CHANDRASENAN 1·. STATE IHANSARIA, J.J 295  

no appeal by lhc Slate against acquittal of the appellants under section 302, A  we would, instead of reversing this finding of the High Court, proceed to.  examine the submission of Shri Sanyal that the brew in question did not  endanger life.  

29. This submission does not stand a moment's scrutiny inasmuch as  the requirement of endangering life mentioned in clause Eighthly cannot  be read in other clauses. To us, this is so apparent that we really did not  expect a submission of this nature from a senior counsel. Shri Sanyal,  however, persisted and sought to press into service the observation made  by a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Govemmellt of Bombay v.  Abdul Wahab, 1945 Bombay Law Reporter, 990 at page 1003. That obser- vation is "The line between culpable homicide not amounting to murder  and grievous hurt is a very thin and subtle one. In the one case the injuries  must be such as are likely to cause death; in the other, the injuries must  be such as endanger life ...... ". This has to be read in the context in which  

B  

c  

it was made; and the same was that the jury in that case had returned a D  unanimous verdict of the accused not being guilty of culpable homicide not  amounting to murder, but only of grievous hurt. A contention was advanced  by the State before the High Court that as injuries in question were such  which endangered life, the guilt of culpable homicide not amounting to  murder was brought home. As, for this offence the injuries must be such  as are "likely to cause death", the Full Bench drew attention to the dif- ference in between the two. The same cannot, therefore, be read to mean  that for a hurt to be designated as "grievous" the same must be such which  endangers life. In the present case, as many as 24 persons having lost their  eye sights permanently, the hurt in question has to be regarded as  "grievous" because of what has ben stated in clause Secondly of section 320.  

E  

F  

30. The two submissions advanced by Shri Sanyal for non-ap- plicability of section 326 to the facts of the present case being not tenable,  we uphold the conviction of the five accused before us under section 326.  This being the position, nothing further is required to be stated regarding  the guilt under section 328, because it cannot be urged, as was faintly G  sought to be done, that the present was not a case where the accused  persons had "caused" liquor to be taken by the affected persons. We have  said so as it was the liquor supplied by the firm to the shops and sub-shops  which was consumed; and so, it has to be held that the consumers were  made to take the liquor supplied by the firm. Other requirements of section H

296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R.  

A 328 being present. the conviction under section 328 too was rightful.  

COMPETENCY TO ISSUE THE RULE OF ENHANCEMENT  

31. Having come to the conclusion that the High Court was right in  convicting the appellants under various sections of law noted above, it is  

B required to be seen whether the sentences as awarded are appropriate on  the facts of the case. When these appeals were being heard earlier, it was  felt that the sentence as awarded needs to be enhanced. Being of this  tentative view, by an order dated 5.1.1994 a suo motu notice was issued  asking to appellants for show-cause as to why the sentence should not be  

C enhanced. Similar notice was issued to A-9. on 10.11.94.  

D  

32. As a point has been taken that this Court lacked competence to  issue the notices, the same needs to be examined first; and we propose to  do so in some detail as there does not appear to be any direct decision of  this Court on this point.  

33. Shri Lalit has mainly addressed us on this aspect. Though at one  stage the learned counsel took a stand that an appellate court seized with  appeal against conviction has no power to suo motu issue rule of enhance- ment under the provisions of the new Code of Criminal Procedure, as  distinguished from the provisions which found place under the old Code,  

E this point was not pursued, after the attention of the learned counsel was  drawn to the judgment rendered in Rengta Majhi v. State of Assam, (1988)  1 Gauhati Law Reports 481, in which one of us (Hansaria, J.) speaking for  a Bench of the Gauhati High Court held that even under the new Code of  Criminal Procedure the power for issuing a suo motu rule of enhancement  

F exits. That decision is based on certain judgments of this Court noted  therein. Shri Lalit conceded that in view of what has been stated in Rengta  Majhi's case, the High Courts do have this power even under the new Code  of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsd, however, urges that the same  power would not be available to this Court as this Court is not exercising  any power conferred or available under the Code, but under Article 136,  

G which, according to Shri Lalit, has conferred a limited jurisdiction and is  confmed to the examination of legality or otherwise of the judgment under  appeal.  

34. Shri Nambiar does not agree with this submission. According to  H him the power conferred on this Court by Article 136 is of wide amplitude

E.K CHANDRASENAN v. STATE (HANSARIA, J.) 297  

and is plenary. Learned counsel also submits that the power of an appellate A  court is normally co-extensive with that of the lower court; and so, if the  High Court in a case of the present nature could have issued the rule of  enhancement, such a power would be available to this Court, when it hears  appeal from the judgment of the High Court. The final contention in this  regard is that, in any case, Article 142 of the Constitution would be B  available for the purpose at hand, if this Court were to be of the view that  to do complete justice the sentence needs to be enhanced.  

35. As Shri Lalit has conceded, and rightly, that despite lack of  appeal by the State relating to the quantum of the sentence, a High Court  is competent, while hearing appeal against conviction, to issue rule of C  enhancement even under the new Code, we would have thought that to  deny such a power to this Court, which is higher in hierarchy, would be  incompatible with the well accepted judicial principle, as normally it should  be within the competence of an appellate court to do what the subordinate  court could do. We may mention here that though Shri Lalit took the right D  stand that non-filing of appeal by the State on the question of sentence is  not material, a contention has been advanced in the written submission  filed on 22.11.94 on behalf of A-10 that this Court will not (meaning  cannot) interfere with the question of sentence in the absence of appeal by  the State Government. (See page 21) In support of this submission refer- ence has been made to two decisions: (1981] 4 SCC 508 and (1976] 2 SCR E  321. A perusal of these decisions shows that they have not dealt with this  aspect at all.  

36. The aforesaid view of ours on the question of power of an  appellate court receives some support from what was stated by a Constitu- p  tion Bench in Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division, AIR  (1958) SC 398. It was held there that the powers which were available to  appellate authorities under the Eastern Bengal and Assam Excise Act were  co-extensive with the powers of the primary authorities. In coming to this  conclusion, what was observed by another Constitution Bench in Ebrahim  Aboobaker v. Custodian General of Evacuee Property, AIR (1952) SC 319, G  was also noted. In that case this Court was concerned with the extent of  the power of the tribunal which had been constituted to hear appeals; and  after nothing the terms of constitution of tribunal it was observed that like  all courts of appeal exercising general jurisdiction in civil cases, the tribunal  had been constituted as appellate court in words of widest amplitude and H

298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11995] 1 S.C.R.  

A the legislature had . not limited its jurisdiction by providing that such  exercise will depend on the existence of any particular state of facts.  

37. What was held in the aforesaid two Constitution Bench decisions  

would indicate that where an appellate authority is conferred with power,  without hedging the same with any restriction, the same has to be regarded  

B as one of widest amplitude and the power of such an appellate authority  would be co-extensive with that of the lower authority. It is apparent that  the appellate power available to this Court under Article 136 is not  

circumcribed by any limitation. We are, Jherefore, inclined to think that  being a court to whom appeals lie from the judgments of the High Court,  

C it would have the same power which is available to a High Court; and in  exercise of such a power the rule of enhancement could have been issued.  

38. We do not, however, propose to uphold the legality of the rule  issued on the aforesaid ground inasmuch as there can be really no dispute  

D that the power given by Article 136 is plenary in nature. This has been the  view of this Court for about four decades by now inasmuch as such a vista  was first opened by a Constitution Bench in Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur  Raghuraj Singh, [1955] 1 SCR 267, by stating that power given by Article  136 is worded in the widest terms possible and it vests in the Supreme  Court "a plenary jurisdiction" and is in the nature of special or residuary  

' E power exercisable outside the purview of the ordinary law in cases the  needs of justice demands interference. Durga Shankar's case was relied by  a Division Bench in Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham, [1979] 2 SCC  297, in which a doubt having been raised about the competence of a private  party, as distinguished from the State, to lli.voke jurisdiction under Article·  

F 136 against a judgement of acquittal by the High Court, it was observed  that there was no substance in the doubt inasmuch as the appellant power  vested under Article 136 is not to be confused with ordinary appellate  power exercised by appellate courts and the same is plenary.  

39. Shri N ambiar has also brought to our notice the Constitution  G Bench decision in Union Carbide v. Union of India, [1991] 4 SCC 584, in  

which it was observed in paragraph 58 that Article 136 vests in this Court  a plenary jurisdiction and the power so conferred can be exercised in spite  of the limitations under the specific provisions for appeal contained in the  constitution or other laws, which Power could be exercised in cases wh\::r~  

H the needs of justice demand interference. The Constitution Bench further  

-'I'-

E.K. CHANDRASENAN v. ST ATE [HANSARIA. J. J 299  

stated in paragraph 62 that the plenitude of. the powers of the apex Court A  is intended to be· co-extensive in each case with the needs of justice of a  given case and to meeting any exigency. The submission of Shri Lalit that  the power conferred by Article 136 is one of limited jurisdiction is, there- for.e, untenable; it has no merit.  

40. What is contained in Article 142 would in any case provide B  sufficient power to this Court to pass an order like one at hand, if this  Court were to be of the view that the same is necessary for doing complete  justice. The contention of Shri Lalit, however, is that despite what is stated  in Article 142 issuance of a suo motu rule for enhancement would not be  permissible because that would be violative of Article 21 inasmuch as it C  would be unfair to the appellant who, having come to this Court for seeking  relief, would face peril in case the sentence comes to be enhanced after  upholding the conviction. The learned counsel urges that Article 21 would  not permit this as that would be a procedure not mandated by law. In ,  support of this contention, some assistance is sought to be derived from D  what was stated by a 7-Judge Bench in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, AIR  (1988) SC 1531, in which the direction given by a 5-Judge Bench in its first  judgment in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, transferring the cases to High  Court was held to be violative to Article 21 as the larger Bench felt that  because of the order in question the appellant would be tried by a proce- dure not mandated by law. What was stated by the 7-Judge Bench has no E  relevance, because if a High Court can issue a rule of enhancement, as  fairly conceded by Shri Lalit, the power of issuing rule of enhancement  cannot be said to be one not mandated by law.  

41. The further submission that power to enhance the sentence has F  to be specifically conferred in case of the present nature has no legs to  stand inasmuch as the Code of Criminal Procedure has not conferred such  a power on High Court when it is seized with an appeal against conviction.  This is apparent from Section 386 of the Code, which has been referred by  Shri Lalit in this context, as the same gets attracted when a High Court  exercises its revisional power under section 401, which power enables a G  High Court, as per Rangta Majhi, to issue a rule of enhancement. In an  appeal from conviction, the appellate court may do any of the following as  per section 386 (b) -

(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge H

300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.  

A the accused, or order him to be re-tried by a Court of competent  jurisdiction sub-ordinate to such Appellate Court or committed  for trial, or  

(ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or  

B (iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the narture or  the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, but not so as  to enhance the same. (Emphasis ours)  

So the submission that power to enhance sentence has to be specifically  C conferred before such a rule can be issued cannot be accepted.  

42. This being the position, we entertain no doubt that this Court has  power in an appropriate case to issue suo motu rule of enhancement. A  contention has, however, been advanced by Shri Lalit that this Court had  denied such a power to it in some of the decisions. Learned counsel first  

D refers in this context to Naresh v. State of U.P., AIR (1981) SC 1385 and  brings to our notice what was stated in paragraph 2. In that case what had  happened was that the High Court altered the conviction of the appellant  from under Section 302 I.P.C. to 304 (Part I). The convicted accused  appealed to this Court, but there was no appeal by the State from aquittal  

E under Section 302. It was, therefore, observed in paragraph 2 nothing could  be done about the acquittal under Section 302, though this Court felt  

• greatly concerned about the grievous error committed by the High Court.  This judgment had thus not dealt with the power to enhancement of  sentence.  

F 43. The next decision to be pressed in service was rendered in Suraj  Bhan v. Om Prakash, [1976] 1 SCC 886. In that case the injured came to  this Court who had approached the High Court in revision for enhance- ment of the sentence. The High Court had been approached by the accused  also against his conviction and sentence. The High Court reduced the  sentence to the period already undergone against which the State did not  

G ·prefer any appeal. The injured, however, made an application to the High  Court for certificate which having been refused he obtained special leave  from this Court. On these facts it was observed in para 10 that ifl the  absence of an appeal against the judgment of the High Court in the  criminal appeal filed by the accused that judgment had become final and  

H the sentence could not be enhanced. The passing observation in paragraph

E.K. CHANDRASENAN v. STATE [HANSARIA, J.] 301  

11 that nothing could be done as regards the sentence cannot be taken to A ·  be a decision that power of enhancement is not available to this Court.. The ·  judgment in The State of Mysore v. C.N. Vijendra Rao, [1976] 2 SCR 321,  which is the last to be referred by Shri Lalit to support this contention has  no relevance, as it dealt with a different point altogether.  

44. If passing observation has to be borne in mind, what was recently B  stated in Narayanamma (Kum.) v. State of Kamataka, [1994] 5 SCC TlB, is  more to the point inasmuch as it was stated in paragraph 6 that though the  sentence of 3 years' rigorous imprisonment for the crime of rape was  inadequate, it did not wish to enhance the same "at this point of time".  

45. On the basis of what has been stated above, we entertain no doubt  that it was within the competence of this Court to have issued the rules of  enhancement. Let it now be examined whether the sentences as awarded  merit to be enhanced.  

46. Let it now be seen whether the sentences on the appellants merit  to be enhanced. On this aspect, according to us, there cannot be two  opinions, as the appellants by their nefarious activity, prompted only by lust  

c  

D  

for money, sold such a brew which contained even a poisonous substance.  And see : the enormity of consequence : 70 deaths and 24 losing their eye  sights permanently. What can be more shocking to the conscience ? If E  greed for money makes people so unconscionable, so unconcerned with  human happiness and make them behave like devils and to destroy human  lives, they have to be dealt with appropriately, sternly and with a steel heart  not yielding to any plea of softness on any ground, not relenting to  discharge the onerous duty which falls on a court in such cases. The need F  to rise to the occasion becomes great and imperative when it is noted that  liquor barons have long been playing with destinies of many with impugnity  for one reason or the other, which has encouraged them to indulge in such  an activity without fear of law haunting them. This is abundantly clear from  deaths due to consumption of spurious liquor . in different parts of the  country. This has becoille almost a regular feature and hooch tragedy has G  been taking heavy toll of human lives almost every year in one part or the  other of this vast country. To mention about such recent tragedies, it was  Gujarat which saw this disaster in 1991 in a big way; it fell on Cuttack in  1992 to see loss of more the 100 lives; and very recently this tragic drama  was enacted in Patna, where too about 100 persons became victim. H

302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 1 S.C.R.  

A 47. So, retribution itself demands enhancement. Deterrence lends  further support to the demand. Let us all strive to check such atrocious  acts. We would be indeed failing in our duty if we were not to do so. And  the least we can do in the cases at hand is to see that the maximum  sentence visualised by our law makers is awarded to all the appellants  

B before us. There can hardly be more appropriate occasion than the one at  hand to award the maximum sentence.  

48. So far as the A-9 is concerned, we have on record his written  submission stating that he had been released from the Central Prison,  Trivandrum on 15th June, 1994 after having undergaone the whole term of  

C punishment. He has further stated that he being an old man aged 72 years  and absolutely deaf and being also financially very weak, his punishment  may not be enhanced. Being not represented by any counsel, we thought  it appropriate to provide him legal aid, to which effect we requested the  Supreme Court Legal Aid Society to appoint a counsel for him. Shri R.K.  

D Jain, Sr. Advocate appeared accordingly. We have heard him.  

49. We acquainted Shri Jain with what had been stated by us while  issuing enhancement notice and the same being that it would be open to  this accused even to urge that he is entitled to acquittal. Shri Jain submitted  that on the face of dismissal of the Special Leave petition filed by this  

E accused, followed by dismissal of the review petition, he is not in a position  to urge that the conviction of this accused was not justified. The learned  -counsel. however, urged that keeping in view the old age of this accused  and his financial weak position, because of which even before the trial court  as well as in the High Court he was given legal aid, we may not enhance  

F the sentence. His deafness is also brought to our notice.  

50. We have duly considered the aforesaid submissions of Shri Jain.  As to the advance age we would say though this is a mitigating cir- cumstance, there exists an aggravating circumstance as well the same being  that it was this accused who was the prime mover, as would be apparent  

G from the facts noted above and as pointed out by the High Court in para  157 of the judgment. Thus the age factor has been neutralised by the active  roll played by this accused in the conspiracy. As regards financial wea"'1ess  of the accused which required providing of legal aid in the courts below,  the same cannot be said to have in any way prejudiced him accused  

H inasmuch as his case was adequately taken care of by the other accused

..  

E.K CHANDRASENAN v. STATE (HANSARIAf] 303  

who were well defended by eminent lawyers. Further, the accused has no_w .A  got assistance of senior counsel like Shri Jain who is known for his legal  acuman. In so far as deafness is concerned, that is not relevant for the  purpose at hand.  

· 51. Because of the above, we have not felt inclined to treat this  accused differently from others. Indeed, treating him differently would B  result in a sort of discrimination, which was one of the submissions ad- vanced by Shri Sanyal appearing for accused 10. This submission does have  merit inasmuch as the roll played by accused 9 was in no way less, really  it was more, than other accused qua whom we are satisfied that a case of  enhancement has been made out. C  

52. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the sentence  of this accused also has to be enhanced. We, therefore, enhance the  sentence of all the appellants and accused 9, named, Ramavarma  Thirumulpad, for their offence under section 326 to imprisonment for life.  In view of this, we are not interfering with sentences awarded to them for D  other offences.  

53. For the reason aforesaid, all the appeals stand dismissed and  rules of enhancement stand disposed of by enhancing sentences as ordered  above. The appellants shall surrender the bail bonds and undergo the E  sentence as awarded by us. The trial court is directed to issue warrants to  arrest all the appellants and accused 9, Ramavarama Thirumulpad. The  concerned District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police are directed  to execute the warrnats.  

SLP (Crl.) No. 1198 of 1990.  

In view of the judgment delivered today in Criminal Appeal No. 422  of 1990 and connected appeals, no separate order is required in this  petition and it stands disposed of in terms of the judgment in those appeals,  

F  

a copy of which would be transmitted to this petitioner by the Registry G  within a week from today.  

R.A. Appeal disposed of.