PAUL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the concurrent conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner for offence under section 55(a) of Abkari Act. He was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and to pay Rs. 5,000/- as fine. Shorn of the details, the case of the Prosecution is that on 05.10.1996, PW9-the Sub Inspector of Police received a reliable information that in the godown of Akshaya Gas Agency, near Cheranalloor-Varappuzha Ferry, Indian Made Foreign Liquor was illegally stored and accordingly he and the Assistant Sub Inspector and other police officials went to that spot. After preparing the search memo and sending it to the Court, they proceeded to the godown. A1 was present there. The godown was got opened and examined. Altogether 475 cases of Indian Made Foreign Liquor were found in that building. Out of them, 179 cases contained 12 bottles each of 750 ml, 228 cases contained 24 Rum bottles each of 375 ml each and 68 cases contained 12 bottles each of Time Brandy of 750 ml. From each of the bottles samples were taken. It was sealed and labelled then and there.

(2.) Ext. P1-search list was prepared. It was signed by A1.A1 was arrested then and there. During investigation, the complicity of five other accused persons was also revealed. The 4th accused is the petitioner herein. According to the prosecution the petitioner herein was the licensee of that godown and he was in possession of the liquor bottles mentioned above. The court below found that A1-the watchman of that godown and A2, A3, A5 and A6 were not proved to have kept or brought those liquor bottles in that godown and hence they were acquitted. Since the petitioner (A4) was proved to be the licensee or the person conducting Akshaya Gas Agency in that godown, he was convicted and sentenced.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that no document was produced by the prosecution to show that the petitioner was the lessee of that building or that he was the licensee or the person authorised to conduct the Gas Agency in that building at the relevant time. But the court below relied upon the evidence of PW11 and the evidence of CW1 to hold that the petitioner had obtained the said building on lease and that the said building was used as the godown of Akshaya Gas Agency. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the absence of any other evidence, the oral testimony of PW11 and CW1 should not have been accepted by the court below. It is also argued that since the prosecution did not cite or examine the persons conducting the Gas Agency to prove that Akshaya Gas Agency was being run by the petitioner and another person, it cannot be said that the petitioner was in conscious possession of those articles.