C.VASUDEVAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the convict in S.C. No. 174/2005 of the Additional Sessions Court, (Adhoc) II, Kalpetta, who has suffered conviction for offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. By judgment dated 19.11.2007, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found him guilty of offence under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. He has also been allowed to set off the period of judicial custody undergone by him during the period of investigation.

(2.) The prosecution allegation is that on 23.02.2004, at about 8.30 P.M., while the Excise Inspector attached to the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad and party were on patrol duty through the Koodothummal - Cheekkallur road, while they reached a place by name Cheekkallur, at about 8.30 P.M., found a person moving against them carrying a can with him. Seeing the Excise party, he was found trying to hide the can with the lunky worn by him. Out of suspicion, the person was intercepted and the content of the can was examined in the presence of independent witnesses. It was a five litre can containing about 2 1/2 litres of liquid. When the content was tested by tasting and smelling, it was found arrack. Thus in the presence of independent witnesses, the item was seized, the said Vasudevan, the appellant was arrested and Crime No. 5/2004 of the Excise Range Office, Kalpetta was registered. He was produced before court on the following day. After completing the procedural formalities, a final report was laid before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalpetta where the case was taken on file as C. P. 70/2004. After completing the formalities, by serving copies of records etc., the Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, Kalpetta from where the case was made over to the trial court.

(3.) In response to the summons, the appellant appeared before the trial court. He was defended by a counsel of his choice. After hearing counsel on both sides, the charge was framed, read over and explained, to which he pleaded not guilty. He is on bail.