KARTHIKA, W/O. GOPINATHAN, UPPAMMOOTTIL THEKKETHIL VEEDU, KUTTEMPEROOR, MANNAR ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT Vs. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner and her husband, Sri. Gopinathan were prosecuted for an offence under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act in Calendar Case No. 90/1997 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -II, Chengannur. The prosecution case was that, the accused stored about 90 litres of wash in their house No. M.P. IV/254 of Kottamperoormuri, Mannar Village, which was detected by Excise Preventive Officer and party on 23.11.1996 at about 7.15 p.m., thereby committing the offence as alleged. The Magistrate convicted both the accused and sentenced both to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/ - (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) each with a default sentence of 2 months each. The petitioner's husband did not file any Appeal and suffered the punishment. The petitioner filed Crl. Appeal No. 38/2000 before the Additional Sessions Judge -I, Mavalikkara, who dismissed the same confirming the conviction as well as the punishment. The judgments of the Courts below are under challenge in this Crl. Revision Petition. The contention of the petitioner is that, there are serious infirmities in the prosecution case. He submits that, there was delay in producing the contraband before the Court, which strikes at the root of the prosecution case. It is further submitted that, the wash was not seized from the petitioner's house but from somebody else's property. Lastly, the counsel for the petitioner would contend that petitioner was residing in the house only as the wife of Gopinathan and was not in any way involved with the crime alleged and her husband having undergone the punishment for the offence committed by him the petitioner is not liable to be either convicted or punished.

(2.) THE learned Public Prosecutor would contend that none of these grounds, except the ground that the wash was recovered from the property of one Kuttan Pillai, is evident from the line of cross -examination of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. It is submitted that, both the petitioner as well as her husband were living in the same house, from where the wash was seized and therefore both of them are equally guilty for the offence charged. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, there is no inordinate delay in producing the seized materials before the Court.