THANKAPPAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the convict in S.C.No.810/2001 of the Additional Sessions Court for the trial of Abkari Act cases, Neyyattinkara. By the judgment dated 02.06.2006 he stands convicted of offence punishable under Section 58 of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The charge sheet was laid by the Excise Inspector, Amaravila Range in Crime No.9/2000 of that Range. The precise allegation against the appellant was that on 18.01.2000 at 9 p.m., while the Excise Inspector of Amaravila and party were on usual patrol duty near Anakkunnu R.C.Church in Nadoorkolla desom in Kollayil village on the Amaravila-Parassala road, the appellant was found moving carrying arrack in a 10 ltr jerrycan. Seeing the excise party he tried to move away; he was intercepted and when the content of the jerrycan was tested by tasting and smelling, it was found filled with arrack. On that basis, in the presence of independent witnesses, the contraband was seized, the appellant was arrested and removed to the Excise range office and the crime was registered. On completion of investigation the charge sheet was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara where the case was taken on file as C.P.No.380/2000. After completing the procedural formalities, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, from where it was made over to the trial court. The appellant was arrested and produced before court on 19.01.2000 and was in judicial custody. Later he was released on bail.

(2.) He was defended by a counsel of his choice. After hearing counsel on both sides, when the charge was framed, read over and explained, he pleaded not guilty. Seven witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked. On completion of prosecution evidence, when examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, he denied all the incriminating materials. As the learned Sessions Judge found it not a fit case for acquitting the appellant under Section 232 Cr.P.C., he was called upon to enter on his evidence in defence. Thereafter one witness was examined as DW1. After hearing counsel on both sides, by the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge, repelling the pleading of the appellant, found him guilty, convicted and sentenced as aforestated. That finding is now challenged in this appeal preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.

(3.) I heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.