PANANTHANATH JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment dated 29.4.2005 in S.C.No.1066 of 2004 of the court of Sessions Judge, Thalassery is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the sole accused therein as he is convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that at about 5.10 p.m. on 17.9.2001 at Iritty in front of Deepthi Bakery of Iritty bus stand, the accused was found in possession of 9 bottles of 750 ml. each Indian Made Foreign Liquor, which was transported from Karnataka state and thus, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act. Accordingly, Crime No.311/2001 was registered in the Iritty Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act. On completing the investigation, a report was filed in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattannur and the learned Magistrate, by order dated 6.2.2004 in C.P.No.150 of 2003 committed the case to the Sessions Court wherein S.C.No.1066 of 2004 was instituted. When the accused appeared, after hearing the prosecution and the defence, a formal charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act and he pleaded not guilty, when the said charge was read over and explained to him. Consequently, the prosecution adduced its evidence by examining Pws.1 to 3 and producing Exts.P1 to P5. MO1 series of 8 plastic bottles of 750 ml. Colombia brandy were identified and marked, on the side of the prosecution. The trial court finally found that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charges levelled against the accused and accordingly, he is found guilty under Section 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act and convicted thereunder and on such conviction, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default, he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six more months. Thus, challenging the above finding, order of conviction and sentence, the accused preferred the present appeal.

(3.) AS I indicated earlier, only three witnesses are examined by the prosecution in order to buttress its allegation against the accused. Among the above three, PW1 is an independent witness who is an attestor to Ext.P1 seizure mahazar. PW3 is the then Sub Inspector of Police, Iritty Police Station, who detected the offence. PW2 is also the S.I. Of Police, who undertook the investigation.