RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the convict in S.C.No.500/2005 on the file of the Additional District Court-II, Kollam. He faced trial for offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act for having illegally possessed arrack. The precise allegation against him is that, on 09.02.2000 at 6.00 p.m. while the Preventive Officer attached to the Excise Range Office, Kollam and party were engaged in patrol duty, while proceeding along the Vellikulangara-Poomattam road from east to west, in front of Valukunnathuveedu, house of Krishnamani, they noticed a person proceeding in the opposite direction holding a plastic bottle of 1 1/2 litre capacity, full of liquid. Out of suspicion, when he was intercepted and the content of the bottle was verified, it was found containing arrack. Thus the contraband was seized under a mahazar and the appellant was arrested from the spot. Everything was done in the presence of independent witnesses. After reaching back the office, Crime No.17/2000 of the Range office was registered under Section 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. The appellant was produced before court on the same day. After investigation, the Excise Inspector laid the charge sheet before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kollam, where the case was taken on file as C.P.No.110/2004. Meanwhile, report of the chemical examination was also received confirming that the appellant was carrying arrack in his possession. Since an offence triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions was revealed, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Kollam, from where it was made over to the trial court.

(2.) The appellant was on bail. 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.

(3.) Five witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution. Exts.P1 to P6 were also marked. The contraband seized from him was identified and marked as MO1. On completion of prosecution evidence, when questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., he denied all the incriminating evidence and reiterated his innocence. As it was not a fit case for acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C., he was called upon to enter on his evidence in defence. However, no evidence was adduced for him. After hearing counsel on both sides, by the impugned judgment, repelling the contentions of the appellant, 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 simple imprisonment for six months. He was also found entitled to get the benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. That finding is now impugned in this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C.