EASWARAN S/O PARAMASIVAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole accused in SC No.642/2005 on the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court - I, Palakkad is the appellant as he he aggrieved by the judgement dated 03.02.2007 of the above Court, by which the appellant is convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that at about 1.30 P.M. on 17.06.2000 the accused was found unauthorizedly carrying 25 litres of toddy in a plastic can through the road on the eastern side of the house of one Dharman in Ozhapathy village in Chittoor Taluk and therefore the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. On the basis of the above allegation, Crime No.27/2000 was registered in the Excise Range Office, Chittoor for the said offence and on completing the investigation, charge was laid, based upon which SC No.642/2005 was instituted. During the trial of the case to substantiate the prosecution allegation, PWs1 to 5 were examined and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked from the side of the prosecution. Besides the above MO1 Plastic Can was produced, identified and marked. Finally the trial court has found that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its allegation against the accused and accordingly he is convicted for the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and on such conviction, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default he is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another 3 months. It is the above findings, order of conviction and sentence are challenged in this appeal.

(3.) I have also perused the deposition of PW1 and PW2 and also the deposition of other official witnesses as well as the independent witnesses. Going by the evidence of PW1 and PW2 I am of the view that their evidence can be safely relied and acted upon as the same contains no contradictions or infirmities. There is no rule that the evidence of official witnesses can be acted upon, only on corroboration of their evidence from independent source. So according to me the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the accused was found transporting 25 litres of toddy at about 1.30 p.m. on 17.06.2000 in front of the house of one Dharman.