In October 2000, 31 people died, and more than 500 developed serious sicknesses, of which six lost their vision companypletely as a result of companysuming spurious liquor, companytaminated with methyl alcohol at different places in Kollam district, Kerala.
The trial companyrt also found the appellant guilty under Section 201 of the Penal Code and on that companynt sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.5,000/ with the default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month.
In some Special Leave Petitions filed by different accused leave was granted but the Special Leave Petition Nos.237 238 filed by one Sudhakaran Sudha and the present appellant was initially dismissed by order dated January 24, 2005.
On chemical analysis, the companytents of the can were found adulterated with methyl alcohol.
At the time of post mortem his blood and urine samples were taken for chemical analysis and the report Ext.
The post mortem report of Yohannan showed that he died of methanol poisoning.
On the basis of the evidences led before it, the trial companyrt found and held, and quite rightly, that the spirit sold by the appellant that caused the death of Yohannan and sickness to several other persons was spurious, being companytaminated with highly injurious and poisonous substances and held him guilty of Sections 55 a i , 57A and 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act hereinafter the Act .
The trial companyrt sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years on each companynt and a fine of Rs.
The State in its appeal questioned the acquittal of some of the accused and also demanded enhancement of sentence in respect of those who were companyvicted and sentenced by the trial companyrt.
The accused were broadly classified into three groups one, the maker and manufacturers of the spurious liquor two, the distributors and suppliers of the killer brew and third the retail vendors who sold the stuff to the companysumers.
The High Court by its judgment and order dated October 8, 2004 dismissed the appeals of the accused, including the one by the appellant.
Cases were initially registered at different police stations, but, later on, all the cases were companysolidated into a single case and on the basis of investigations made by the police, 48 accused in all were put on trial.
Nos.613 614 of 2005, which were allowed by order dated November 14, 2005 and leave was granted.
Against the judgment and order passed by the trial companyrt, appeals were preferred both by the accused, including the present appellant and the State.
P413 a a plastic can M.O.98 companytaining the residue of the spirit sold by him was recovered and seized from his shop.
Before the trial companyrt the prosecution was able to successfully establish that on October 21, 2000, two days prior to the tragic occurrence, fresh supply was brought to the appellant on a motor cycle.
One Lakh on each companynt except under Section 57A and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year on each companynt.
The appellant who was accused No.41 before the trial companyrt fell in the third category.
The prosecution case, insofar as the appellant is companycerned, was that he was engaged in the sale of liquor and he received his supplies from accused Nos.
The arrack received by him on that date was sold to various persons and on companysuming it, they became very ill and one of them, namely, Yohannan died.
P1059 showed presence of methyl alcohol in the samples.
Against the judgment and order passed by the High Court, the accused came to this Court in different batches.
The trial companyrt directed that the sentences of imprisonment shall run companycurrently.
25 26.
one Lakh in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months on each companynt under Sections 55 a and i .
But, he is punished only for two years under Section 55 a and i and punishment should companymensurate with the offence.
Even though he was only a small retail seller, who got liquor from A 25, one person died and several persons were injured.
Later on, the appellant filed Review Petition Crl.
Further, on the basis of a disclosure statement made by the appellant Ext.
His companyviction and sentence for other offence are also companyfirmed.
By the same order, the appellant was also enlarged on bail.
Sentences shall run companycurrently.
