PRABHAKARAN, S/O. RAMAN, SATHYASAI PARAMBA NEELIKKAD Vs. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, HEMAMBIKA NAGAR POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first accused who was convicted by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track -I), Palakkad is the appellant. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay Rs. One lakh as fine and in default to undergo S.I. for six months. Charge sheet was laid against three accused persons. A2 and A3 who were acquitted by the trial court were the passengers in the autorickshaw driven by A1, the appellant herein. The autorickshaw was intercepted by P.W.4, the S.I. of Police and his officials on 26.10.2000 at about 5 PM on the public road at Kallekulangara. Ext.P1 seizure mahazar shows that 5 bottles measuring 750 ml each Bejois Grape Brandy with a sticker "for sale in Karnataka State only" were found in a bag kept in the rear side of the passengers' seat. Samples were taken in two bottles. Accused were arrested then and there. The accused, seizure mahazar, arrest memo and other records were produced before the learned Magistrate on 27.10.2000 itself. After conducting investigation, charge sheet was laid against all the three accused.

(2.) P .W.1 to P.W.7 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. M.O.1 series and M.Os.2 and 3 were also identified and marked.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant would submit that it was possible that the bag containing liquor bottles might have been kept on the rear side of the seat by A2 or A3 and so benefit of doubt should have been given to A1. This submission is resisted by the learned Public Prosecutor who would point out that there was no case for A1 that the bag containing the liquor bottles might have been kept there by A2 and A3. On the other hand, there was a total denial by the three accused. But the evidence given by P.Ws.4 and 5 and Ext.P1 would clearly show that the autorickshaw was intercepted at the time and place as mentioned above and it was A1 who was driving the autorickshaw at that time. The evidence would also show that the bag which contained the liquor bottles was not in the seat or platform where A2 and A3 were sitting but only on the rear side of the passengers' seat. Therefore, A1 alone could have kept the same in that portion of the autorickshaw. That apart, there was no case for A1 that he was unaware of the fact that liquor bottles were kept in the autorickshaw. Hence, considering the totality of the evidence and circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly found that accused Nos.2 and 3 were not responsible for keeping those bottles at that place.