REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 557-558  OF 2002

State Rep. by Tahsildar-Cum-Sales  Officer  ..Appellant

Versus

M. Janakiraman and Anr.   ..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of acquittal recorded by

a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court.  The respondents  were

accused in  C.C.No.195 of  1991  on the file  of  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,

Pondicherry. Both of them were convicted for offences punishable  under

Sections 31, 33, 37(a) and 38(1) of Pondicherry Excise Act, 1970 (in short

the  ‘Act’)  and  each  of  them  were  sentenced   to  undergo  rigorous

imprisonment  for  six  months  under  each  head  and  the  sentences  were

ordered to run concurrently and fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation

was imposed. Appeals were preferred by the accused persons and learned

IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry affirmed the conviction so far

as offence punishable under Sections 31, 33 and 37(a) are concerned.  But

the sentences were modified. The accused persons filed a Criminal Revision

petitions before the Madras High Court.  

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

On  28.4.1990  at  7.30  a.m.  Tahsildar  (Excise)  Visanathan  (PW-5)

alongwith  his  officials  and  police  party  went  on  a  routine  raid  and  they

received  information  that  some people  were  indulging  in  manufacturing

illicit  Indian  Made Foreign Liquor  (IMPL) at  Aranganoor.  They reached

Aranganoor and when they went near the unfinished house of accused No.1

Janakiraman, they noticed the smell of arrack coming from that house. On

seeing them, a person who was standing there, ran away and they found a

lady  there.  On  enquiry,  they  came  to  know  that  she  was  Vasantha  @

Kumari, the daughter-in-law of Janakiraman and the person who ran away

2

from there,  was  accused No.2  Settu  another  son  of  Janakiraman and the

house belonged to accused No.1. Janakiraman. Excise Officer, Viswanathan

(P.W.5) found a room in the house locked. When enquired, Vasantha told

them  that  the  key  was  with  accused  No.2  who  ran  away  from  there.

Thereupon, the lock was broken and they went inside and saw 2000 bottles

containing  illicit   liquor  (manufactured  brandy)  and  they  also  found

apparatus and other items for manufacturing illicit brandy alongwith empty

bottles. Viswanathan (P.W.5) seized the materials under cover of Mahazar

in the presence of Vasantha and Assistant Inspector. P.W registered a case

in Crime No.4 of 1990 under Sections 31, 33, 37(a) and 38(1) of the Act and

sent  the  samples  for  chemical  analysis.  He  examined  the  witnesses  and

made the final report.  The trial Court and the first Appellate Court found

the accused persons guilty.  

The  High  Court  by  the  impugned  order  allowed  the  Revision

Petitions.  

3. In  support  of  the  appeals,  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant-State

submitted  that  the  High Court’s  judgment  is  practically  non-reasoned.  It

does not refer to the factual scenario or the evidence. Mere reference has

3

been made to certain judgments of the High Court and this Court without

even indicating as to how they are relevant  for the  purpose of  this  case.

Learned counsel  for the respondents  supported the judgment of the High

Court.  

4. We find that the only reason indicated by the High Court to direct

acquittal reads as follows:  

“Chapter  VIII  of  Pondicherry  Excise  Act  deals  with detection,  investigation  and  trial  of  offences  and  its empowers the excise officers to conduct search to seize the  articles  liable  for  confiscation,  to  arrest  without warrant to conduct investigation and to complete it since the excise officer is empowered to conduct search and is also  entitled  to  make  investigation  and  complete  the same  in  accordance  with  law.  The  fact  that  the complainant  himself  conducted  investigation  in  the present  case  would  not  vitiate  the  proceedings.  The contention of the petitioners that the procedure adopted by  PW-5  in  filing  the  complaint  and  conducting  the investigation  are  vitiated  by  illegality  cannot  be accepted.”

5. The evidence of the witnesses and the conclusions of the trial Court

and the first  Appellate  Court  have not  been referred to at all.  When two

courts had found the accused persons guilty, the High Court has even not

indicated as to  how the conclusions of the trial  Court and the Appellate

court were without any basis or not sustainable. The manner of disposal of

4

the Revision Petitions leaves much to be desired. Above being the position,

we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remit the matter

to the High Court for a fresh consideration and disposal by a reasoned order.

Needless to say that the factual scenario and the evidence has to be analysed

by the High Court while deciding the revision petitions afresh.  

6. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.       

………………………………….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

………………………………….J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, February 09, 2009

5