SIVANANDAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, hereinafter referred to as 'the Code', challenging the correctness of the judgment passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam, dated 14.12.2007 in SC No.288/2003. That case was taken on file on the final report laid by Excise Inspector, Karunagappilly in Crime No.57/2000 alleging offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. The allegation is that on 17.05.2000 at 12.15 p.m., the Excise Inspector, Karunagappilly Range and party found him on the Vavvakkavu-Vallikkavu road in Kulasekharapuram village, in front of the house of one Kottayil Sreedharan, carrying a plastic bottle containing some liquid, about 1 1/2 litres. Seeing the Excise party he tried to drift away, getting suspicion he was intercepted, the content of the bottle was tested by smelling and tasting; finding that it was illicit arrack, the contraband was seized in the presence of independent witnesses and the appellant was arrested. After taking the appellant and the contraband to the Excise range office the crime was registered.

(2.) After hearing counsel on both sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed a charge alleging offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act, read over and explained to the appellant, which he denied. He was defended by his own counsel.

(3.) Prosecution evidence consists of the oral testimony of PWs 1 to 6 and Exts.P1 to P7. The material object was identified and marked as MO1. On conclusion of evidence, when examined under Section 313 of the Code, he denied all the incriminating materials. According to him, he was taken into custody from his own house on 16.05.2000, that nothing was seized from his possession. Thus, he reiterated his innocence. As the appellant could not be acquitted under Section 232 of the Code, he was called upon to enter upon his evidence in defence. However, he did not adduce any evidence. After hearing counsel on both sides, by the impugned judgment, the learned Judge found him guilty under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1 lakh, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. That finding is the subject matter of this appeal.