NHALIYAM MAKKIL RAVEENDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court dismissing the Revision Petition filed by the appellant. On the allegation that on 13.8.1999 the accused was found to be in possession of 4 litres of arrack made in Karnataka in 40 packets, each containing 100 ml. It was held that the accused was guilty of offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1077.

(3.) Law was set into motion as the prosecution was of the view that the accused was in possession of liquor in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Five wit nesses were examined to further the prosecution version. Accused pleaded inno cence. Learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Thalassery found the Appellant guilty for commission of offence and sentenced him to undergo simple impris onment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with default stipula tion. An appeal was preferred before the Sessions Court, Thalassery which was dis missed. In the revision, the basic contention was that the alleged offence was com mitted on 13.8.1999 the seized property was produced in the Court on 16.8.1999. There was three days delay which was fatal. Before the High Court it was alterna tively submitted that the sentence as imposed was high. The High Court noted that the offence was detected on 13.8.1999 by PW-4, a Sub-Inspector of Police, Iritty and his police party while they were on patrol duty. While they reached near the bus stop the accused-appellant was seen alighting from a bus with cloth bag in his hand. Getting suspicious PW-4 tried to stop him. The accused hurriedly crossed the road and ran away. He was chased and apprehended by the police party and on examina tion of the cloth bag in his hand it was found that the same contained 40 packets of some liquid suspected to be some illicit arrack. The contraband liquor was seized. The contents of two out of 40 packets were emptied into a bottle and sealed. Before the sample bottle was seized, the accused as well as the properties were taken to the police station where the registration of the case was done. The articles were seized at 6.40 in the afternoon. Samples were produced in Court on 16.8.1999 and till then they were in safe custody. The letter of the Magistrate clearly shows that when the articles were produced before him they were packed and sealed.