NDLI: Chandran @ Manichan @ Maniyan Vs. State of Kerala

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Abkari Act -
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Kerala Abkari Act, 1 of 1077 (1 of 1077)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Others
Headnote	Abkari Act - s.57A - Spurious liquor trade - Improper mixing of noxious substance (methyl alchohol) with liquor led to death of 31 persons and blindness and grievous injuries to several persons - A/legation that the accused were engaged in the business of manufacture, storing, sale and supply of illicit liquor which resulted in the said liquor tragedy - Conviction of A-7 and his two brothers A-8 and A-4 u/ s.57A(1)(ii), and A-25 and A-30 u/s.57A(2) - All accused sentenced to life imprisonment - On appeal, held: Methyl alcohol was used in mixing the liquor which was under the control of A-7 who was being helped by his brothers, servants and relatives - In order to be convicted u/s. 57 A, the Prosecution is not required to prove that A-7 physically mixed the methyl alcohol or the injurious substance with the spirit - If A-7 directed his servants to mix methanol that would also be covered within the scope of the words mixes or permits to be mixed' in the Section - The knowledge of A-7 that methanol was being mixed, the fact that he was running the business along with his hirelings and the further fact that he used to be present at the time of the mixing are properly proved by the prosecution - A-8 is the real brother of A-7 and there are number of other circumstances to suggest that A-8 was actively engaged in the business - A-8 was an active member in carrying the said spurious liquor and the fact that a vehicle under his possession found from his premises had the trace of methanol is sufficient to hold that he had the necessary knowledge that methanol played a major part in the business - The frequent calls of A-8 to his brother also show that he was actively involved in the business - It is not necessary that A-8 had to mix or permit to be mixed the noxious substance himself - A-4 was also thoroughly in the business like his brothers A-7 and A-8 - Conviction of A-8, A-7 and A-4 u/s.57A(1)(ii) and sentence of life imprisonment imposed thereunder accordingly maintained - As regards A- 25, it is established that he used to take the liquor manufactured by A-7 and the same used to be supplied to him by A-4 and the same was distributed by him further A-25 does not seem to have taken care that it was not mixed with methyl alcohol - Once this fact regarding the possession of methyl alcohol is proved, A-25 cannot argue that the possession of methyl alcohol was only incidental - The words "omits to take reasonable precaution" would cast a duty on him to see that the liquor that he sells is not mixed with poisonous substance - Again, under sub-section (5) of s. 57 A, he was bound to prove that he had taken reasonable precaution, as contemplated in sub-section (2) - No evidence that the accused discharged his burden in any manner - Therefore, his conviction for offence punishable u/s.57A(2) is justified:- However, he should not be punished with life imprisonment - This accused has already undergone more than 10 years of imprisonment - Sentence brought down to the period already undergone by him - The case of A-30 more- or less is identical with A-25 - There is enough evidence to show that A-30 was involved in the procurement of liquor from A-4 - He then packed it in the covers and supplied it - A-30 was also behind the bars for more than 10 years - His life imprisonment is also set aside and brought down to that already undergone by him. Abkari Act- s.57A - Illicit liquor trade - Burden of proof - On whom - Held: The prosecution has the initial burden to suggest that the accused person was involved in the business of illicit liquor and that he knew the nature thereof - It is only then that the burden would shift to the accused to prove that he had no means to know about the nature of the business or the fact that the liquor was being mixed with noxious substance like methanol - On facts, the prosecution had discharged its primary burden - The accused persons, more particularly, A-7, A-4 and A-8, did not offer any evidence so as to discharge the burden put against them.. Abkari Act - s. 57 A - Mixing of noxious substance with liquor - Liability under s.57A - Held: S.57-A is extremely general - Held: Offence under the Section is not limited to licence holders, but refers to anybody who mixes or permits to be mixed any noxious substance or any substance which is likely to endanger human life with any liquor - In addition to the mixing or permitting to be mixed, sub-section (2) of s. 57 A brings in the dragnet of the offence, a person who omits to take reasonable precaution to prevent the mixing of any noxious substance - For being convicted u/s.57A, it is not necessary that the person concerned must himself do the mixing.Penal Code, 1860 - s. 1208 - Spurious liquor trade involving mixing of noxious substance (methyl alchohol) with liquor - Leading to death of 31 persons and blindness and grievous injuries to several persons - Allegations of conspiracy against accused-appellants - Held: On facts, it may not have been a conspiracy to mix the noxious substance but the fact of the matter is that in order to succeed in the business which itself was a conspiracy the accused mixed or allowed to be mixed methanol and used it so freely that ultimately 31 persons lost their lives - The prosecution clearly proved that there was a noxious substance which was likely to endanger the human life - Secondly, they proved that the substance was mixed, permitted to be mixed and was being regularly mixed with liquor - They thirdly" proved that the persons mixing had the knowledge. that methanol was a dangerous substance that aspect would be clear from the fact that after the tragedy A-7 went and punished his servants and remonstrated them for 'not properly' mixing methanol with ethyl alcohol - Lastly, it is proved that as a result of mixing of methanol with the liquor and as a result of consuming such liquor as many as 31 persons lost their lives and number of others suffered grievous injuries.Criminal Trial - Evidence of accomplice - Admissibility - Held: The evidence of an accomplice is admissible subject to the usual caution - On facts, even if the prosecution did not prosecute PW53 - a close relative of the accused, and used his evidence only as an accomplice, it was perfectly legal - The evidence of PW-53 was most natural and was not shaken in any manner in his cross-examination - He gave complete graphic description of the incident in question. Spurious liquor trade - Role of the State - State Government to take definite steps for overhauling the system, by weeding out the corrupt by punishing them.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar
Neutral Citation	2011 INSC 264
Petitioner	Chandran @ Manichan @ Maniyan
Respondent	State Of Kerala
SCR	[2011] 8 S.C.R. 273
Judgement Date	2011-04-04
Case Number	1528

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Chandran @ Manichan @ Maniyan Vs. State of Kerala

Please Log-in to view this content

State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. B. Surendra Das Etc.

Santosh @ Santosh Kumar Vs. State of Kerala

Soman Vs. State of Kerala

Sathyan Vs. State of Kerala

State of Kerala and Ors. Vs. Mcdowell and Co. Ltd.

A. Damodaran & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.

Nhaliyam Makkil Raveendran Vs. State of Kerala

T.j. Baby and Ors. Etc. Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.

Vilasini Vs. State of Kerala

Chandran @ Manichan @ Maniyan Vs. State of Kerala

Chandran @ Manichan @ Maniyan Vs. State of Kerala

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. B. Surendra Das Etc.

Santosh @ Santosh Kumar Vs. State of Kerala

Soman Vs. State of Kerala

Sathyan Vs. State of Kerala

State of Kerala and Ors. Vs. Mcdowell and Co. Ltd.

A. Damodaran & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.

Nhaliyam Makkil Raveendran Vs. State of Kerala

T.j. Baby and Ors. Etc. Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.

Vilasini Vs. State of Kerala

Chandran @ Manichan @ Maniyan Vs. State of Kerala