RAVEENDRAN, S/O. MANDAN Vs. EXCISE INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER challenges the concurrent verdict of conviction and sentence passed against him in a case filed under Sec.55(a) of Abkari Act. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay Rs.25,000.00 as fine and in default to undergo R.I. for three months.

(2.) IT is alleged that on 22.8.1996 at about 9.45 PM while the Special Squad, formed by the District Collector, and PW2, the then Excise Range Inspector, Thalassery were on patrol duty at a place called Dharmadam somewhere near the Block Development Office, Thalassery, they got a reliable information that liquor was illegally transported from Mahi. Accordingly, PW2 and PW3 (the S.I.) inspected autorickshaw bearing No.KLN 9585, which was seen coming on the road, of which the petitioner was the driver. There were four tins kept in front of the passenger seat in that autorickshaw. Each tin contained 35 bottles of 180ml of IMFL. There were thus 140 such bottles of 180ml. The bottles were having uniform label as Royal Gold Cup Special Brandy. Those liquor bottles were not sold from KSBC nor were those bottles having a sticker/label of KSBC. On the other hand, the labels indicated that those liquor bottles were intended to be sold only in Pondichery State. Hence, the petitioner was arrested and the contraband articles were seized as per Ext.P2 mahazar. It was stated that out of the same, 8 such bottles of 180ml each were taken as sample and the sample bottles were sealed and labelled in the presence of the accused. The accused and the articles were produced before the learned Magistrate on 24.8.1996. After conducting investigation, charge sheet was laid against the petitioner.

(3.) TINS in which those liquor bottles were found were marked as MO2. The trial court accepted the case of the prosecution and found the petitioner guilty. After re- appreciation of the evidence, the appellate court concurred with the conviction and sentence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued at length contending that the petitioner was only a driver of the autorickshaw who was carrying passenger and that the petitioner was actually unaware of the fact that 4 tins were containing liquor bottles. According to the petitioner, there was a passenger in the autorickshaw but, on seeing the police/excise party, the passenger took to his heels in darkness. So, the petitioner was arrayed as accused. It is further contended that since the liquor bottles were in 4 tins, it can never be said that the petitioner was in conscious possession of the liquor bottles. The further submission made by the learned counsel is that the act complained of will not attract the offence under Sec.55(a) of Abkari Act. Sample was not taken from all the bottles and that all 132 bottles which are produced as MO1 series were not labelled and so, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of reasonable doubt.