(1.) THE appellant is the accused in S.C. 169 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc-I), Palakkad. THE Station House Officer, Mannarkkad Police Station, prosecuted the appellant alleging offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act with a plea that on 18.11.1999 at 5.30 p.m., the appellant was found possessing 2.7litres of illicit arrack at a pathway near Ambedkar Colony, Elumbulassery.
(2.) PW.1, the Sub Inspector of Police, while moving on patrol duty, along with PW.5, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, found the appellant standing along the pathway, with a jerry can which was marked as M.O.1. Seeing PW.1 and party, the appellant abandoned M.O.1 and took to his heels. Though PW.1 and party made an attempt to apprehend the appellant, they were not successful. They verified the contents in M.O.1 and satisfied that it contains 2.7 litres of illicit arrack. 100 ml. of the liquid was taken in three sample bottles and sealed then and there. For the seizure of the contraband and sampling, Ext.P1 seizure mahazar was prepared. Returning to the Police Station, a case as Crime 7/1999 registered for which Ext.P2 First Information Report was prepared. The investigation was taken over by PW.6, the Additional Sub Inspector of Police. He forwarded the sample for chemical examination and obtained Ext.P5. After completing the investigation PW.1 laid the charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Mannarkkad.
(3.) PW1 had given evidence in support of the prosecution case. PW.5, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police also would corroborate with the evidence of PW.1. Exts.P1, P2 and M.O.1 were identified by PWs 1 and 5. PWs 2 and 3 are attestors to Ext.P1. Both of them did not support the prosecution though PW.2 admitted his signature in Ext.P1. PW.4 is an attestor to Ext.P3 scene mahazar. PW.6 would depose about the process of investigation. He proved Exts.P3 to P5. Ext.P5 would show that the sample contained 16.41% by volume of ethyl alcohol. Going by the above evidence, I find no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case regarding the seizure of M.O.1 and the contraband liquid. The main argument that was advanced by the learned counsel is regarding the identity of the appellant.