CHAMI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the convict in S.C.No.743/2010 of the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track No.-II, Palakkad; he was found guilty and convicted for an offence punishable under Section 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. The prosecution allegation is that, on 13/05/2010 at 8.45 A.M., the Preventive Officer attached to the Cherpulassery Excise Range Office and party found the appellant in illegal possession of five litres of arrack, on the Chalavara-Thiruvakkonam road, near the Cholai bridge in Chalavara desom and village in Ottapalam taluk. It is alleged that, that day while the Preventive Officer and party were engaged in patrol duty, near the Cholai bridge at 8.45 A.M., the appellant was found moving through the road carrying a plastic can containing some liquid. Seeing the Excise party the appellant became panic; he was intercepted and the content of the can was tested by smelling and tasting; finding that it was arrack, the item was seized under a mahazar, in the presence of independent witnesses the appellant was arrested from the place and handed over to the Excise Inspector who registered Crime No.18/10 of Cherpulassery Range. The appellant was produced before the court on the same day along with the contraband. After investigation the charge sheet was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ottapalam, who took it on file as C.P.No.106/2010. After completing the procedural formalities, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Palakkad from where it was made over to the trial court.

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

(3.) The prosecution charge contains five witnesses who are the Preventive Officer and an Excise Guard, two independent witnesses and the Excise Inspector who completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet. All of them were examined as PWs 1 to 5 respectively. Exts.P1 to P14 were also marked on the side of the prosecution. On conclusion of the evidence, when examined under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all the incriminating materials tendered against him and claimed that he is innocent. To the penultimate question he said that one Gopalakrishnan had indulged in illegal sale of brandy near his house which he had objected; out of that animosity, at the instance of the said Gopalakrishnan, a false case was foisted against him.