VARGHESE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the accused in S.C.No.299/2005 of the Additional Sessions Court-II Kalpetta. By the judgment dated 22.11.2007 he stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. That case had originated from the final report filed by the Excise Inspector, Kalpetta in Crime No.12/2003 of that Excise Range. The precise allegation is that on 19.05.2003 at about 3.00 p.m., while the Excise Inspector and party were engaged in patrol duty, near the grotto on the Pallithodu-Mundupara road, in Pallithodu desom, Vythiri taluk, the appellant was found moving through the road carrying a five litre black can containing 2 ltrs. of arrack. He was intercepted, the contraband was seized from his possession and after preparing the mahazar in the presence of independent witnesses the crime was registered. After investigation, the charge sheet was laid before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalpetta alleging offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. After completing the procedural formalities, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Kalpetta, from where the matter was made over to the trial court.

(2.) After hearing counsel on both sides, when the charge was framed, read over and explained, the appellant pleaded not guilty. He was on bail. He was defended by the counsel engaged by him.

(3.) Four witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution as PWs 1 to 4. Exts.P1 to P7 were marked. The contraband was identified and marked as MO1. On completion of the prosecution evidence, when examined under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., he denied all the incriminating evidence. According to him, he has no connection with the contraband produced before the court. Evidently, there was no ground for acquitting the appellant under Section 232 Cr.P.C. The appellant did not adduce any evidence in defence. After hearing counsel on both sides, by the impugned judgment, he was found guilty of the offence alleged against him and sentenced as aforestated. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has come up in appeal.