Adulterated liquor causing permanent blindness supports grievous hurt, and Article 136 permits suo motu sentence enhancement in appropriate cases.

Active participation in a liquor-adulteration enterprise was found from circumstantial evidence, including the role of those controlling the business and the scale of the operation. The text states that introducing methyl alcohol into liquor was not a mere admixture but the use of a poisonous substance, so permanent loss of eyesight constituted grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC and the ingredients of Section 328 IPC were also satisfied. It further notes that, in an Article 136 appeal, the Supreme Court considered its power plenary enough to issue suo motu notice for enhancement of sentence and to enhance punishment under Article 142 where justice required it.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants were proved to have acted in concert in adulterating liquor and were liable for the convictions sustained by the High Court; (ii) Whether the convictions under Sections 326 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code were legally sustainable on the facts found; (iii) Whether the Supreme Court had competence in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to issue a suo motu rule for enhancement of sentence and enhance the sentence awarded.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants were proved to have acted in concert in adulterating liquor and were liable for the convictions sustained by the High Court.

Analysis: The material on record showed active participation of the persons managing the firm in the supply and distribution of adulterated liquor. The finding of concert was supported by the surrounding circumstances, the scale of the operation, the role of the persons controlling the business, and the evidence accepted by the High Court. Conspiracy could be established by circumstantial evidence, and the record was sufficient to connect the appellants with the illegal enterprise.

Conclusion: The finding of active participation and conspiracy was upheld against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the convictions under Sections 326 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code were legally sustainable on the facts found.

Analysis: The adulteration was not a mere mixing of liquor but the introduction of methyl alcohol, a poisonous substance. Knowledge of the likely consequences could be imputed because the act was inherently illegal and the substance used was poisonous. Permanent loss of eyesight brought the case within grievous hurt under Section 320, and the requirement of hurt endangering life in one clause could not be imported into the clause relating to permanent privation of sight. The ingredients of Section 328 were also satisfied because the affected persons were caused to take the adulterated liquor supplied by the firm.

Conclusion: The convictions under Sections 326 and 328 were held to be valid.

Issue (iii): Whether the Supreme Court had competence in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to issue a suo motu rule for enhancement of sentence and enhance the sentence awarded.

Analysis: The appellate power under Article 136 was treated as plenary, and the Court held that it was not circumscribed so as to deny the power to issue enhancement notice where justice required it. The Court also held that Article 142 supported such action for complete justice. The contrary contention based on Article 21 and on the absence of a State appeal was rejected. In view of the enormity of the offence, deterrence and retribution justified enhancement.

Conclusion: The Court held that it had competence to enhance sentence and enhanced the sentence under Section 326 to imprisonment for life.

Final Conclusion: The convictions were maintained, the sentence for the principal offence was enhanced, and the appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal under Article 136, the Supreme Court may, in an appropriate case, exercise plenary appellate power to issue a suo motu enhancement notice and enhance sentence, and adulteration of liquor with a poisonous substance causing permanent loss of eyesight constitutes grievous hurt attracting Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.

---