SASI @ MYLAN AND ORS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in S.C.No.297 of 2006 of the court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc-I), Ernakulam are the appellants since they are aggrieved by the judgment dated 31/08/2007 in the above Sessions case by which they are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 8(1) & (2) of the Abkari Act.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 06/06/2002 at 11 a.m. the accused were found in possession of 58.50 litres of illicit arrack in five cannas and 44 bottles while the same were detected in a rubber estate at Sebiyoor West Colony on Malayattoor village. On the basis of the above allegation, Crime No.29 of 2002 of Kalady Excise Range was registered for the said offence and on completing the investigation, a report was filed in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor, thus C.P.No.120 of 2005 was instituted. The learned Magistrate, subsequently, by order dated 20/06/2006 committed the case to the Sessions Court wherein S.C.No.297 of 2006 was instituted. When the accused entered appearance, after hearing the prosecution as well as the defence, a formal charge was framed against the accused for the above offence and when the said charge was read over and explained to the accused they denied the same. Consequently, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 7 and produced Exts.P1 to P9 to substantiate its allegation. MOs.1 to 4 are also identified and marked as material objects. Finally, the trial court has found that the prosecution has established that both the accused were possessed illicit arrack against the provisions of the Abkari Act and accordingly the accused were found guilty under Section 8(1) & (2) of the Abkari Act and consequently, they are convicted thereunder. On such conviction, taking a lenient view, both the accused are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, in default they are directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Set off is allowed. It is the above finding, order of conviction and sentence that are challenged in this appeal.

(3.) I have heard Sri.K.Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.S.Hyma, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.