OMANA, W/O.KUMARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole accused in S.C.No.665 of 2004 of the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge(Adhoc), Fast Track Court-II, Pathanamthitta is the appellant as she is aggrieved by the judgment dated 2.5.2005 in the above sessions case by which she is convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that the accused was found keeping in her possession for the purpose of sale about 3 litres of arrack in a 5 litre black can on the northern courtyard of the residential building of the accused by name Thadathil veedu at Anchumukku in Koodal muri and the same was detected at about 6 p.m. on 20.5.2003 and thus, according to the Police, the accused had committed the offence punishable under Sections 8(1) and (2) of the Kerala Abkari Act and accordingly, Crime No.85 of 2003 was registered in the Police Station for the said offence. On completing the investigation, report was filed in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta wherein C.P.No.68 of 2004 was instituted and the learned Magistrate, by his proceedings dated 31.7.2004, committed the case to the Sessions Court wherein S.C.No.665 of 2004 was instituted which is made over to the present trial court for disposal.

(3.) IN order to prove the allegation against the accused, the prosecution mainly depends upon the evidence of PW4, the detecting officer. When PW4 was examined, he had stated that while he was working as S.I.of Police, Koodal Police Station and while he was on law and order duty on 20.5.2003, he had got information that the accused engaged in the sales of illicit arrack and consequently, himself and party proceeded to the spot. Thus, according to PW4, at about 6.55 p.m. himself and party reached the road lying in front of the house of the accused, at that time she was seen running through the northern courtyard of the house carrying a can and a glass tumbler and she proceeded to the rubber estate situating on the north of the house. According to PW4, when the team followed her, she abandoned the can and glass tumbler and ran away and escaped and they could not catch hold of the accused. According to PW4, he picked up the can and glass tumbler and on examination of the contents of the can, he realised that it was arrack due to its odour and colour. According to him, he had drawn two samples, each measuring 180 ml. in bottles and the can with the remaining content and the sample bottles were sealed and affixed with labels containing signatures of the witnesses. According to him, he had drawn Ext.P1 mahazar prescribing the procedure adopted by him in drawing the sample and seizure of the contraband article. According to PW4, thereafter, he went to the Police Station and prepared Ext.P2 F.I.R and the contraband articles and samples are produced in the court as per Ext.P3 property list. He had also deposed that the accused was arrested at 8.30 p.m on 10.7.2003 at the place called Anchumukku. Ext.P6 is the arrest memo and Ext.P7 is the inspection memo. Ext.P8 remand application is also proved through PW4. According to PW4, the samples were sent for chemical analysis on the basis of Ext.P5 forwarding note. Ext.P4 is the chemical analysis report so obtained, which would show the presence of ethyl alcohol in the two samples. Pws.1 and 2 are the two independent witnesses, whose signatures are found place in Ext.P1 mahazar. PW3 is the Police Constable, who accompanied PW4 at the time of detection of the crime. These are the evidence referred to by the learned Judge and relied on in support of his finding to convict the accused.