K R SOORAJ Vs. EXCISE INSPECTOR ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before the Court of Sessions, Palakked which was dealing with sessions case 86/1999 involving the offence under S.56 and 57 A (iii) of the Abkari Act, the present petitioner who was the 4th accused made a plea for discharge under S.227 of the Cr.P.C He contended that according to the case of the complainant the offence was committed only by accused Nos. 1 to 3 and that the petitioner's name was mentioned only as the owner of the vehicle and also in his capacity as brother of the first accused.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the relationship with the first accused nor the fact that he is the owner of the vehicle in which the contraband was transported would cast any legal liability or culpability on him and that in the circumstances the learned Sessions Judge was bound to grant the discharge sought for.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to him the owner of the vehicle has some liability in the matter of confiscation of vehicle used for illegal transport of liquor and hence the trial as a coaccused will be fully justified. It is also pointed out that under S.64 of the Abkari Act that there is presumption against the 4th accused.