SHANMUGHAYYA, S/O.SENTHOORAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.294/1998 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Peerumedu. He was prosecuted for offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. The allegation against the petitioner was that at 12.15 during the night in between 17.12.1996 and 18.12.1996, the petitioner was found in possession of one litre of arrack kept for sale among the public, who came to attend the festival at Kannamkulam temple in Vagamon Village. He, thereby, committed the offence alleged against him.

(2.) THE prosecution examined PWs 1 to 5 and marked Exts.P1 to P3 as well as MOs 1 and 2. The defence did not adduce any evidence. After considering the evidence of the prosecution, the Magistrate found the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000.00 (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. Set off was allowed in respect of the period, if any, during which the accused was in detention, pending investigation, enquiry and trial. The petitioner challenged the judgment of the Magistrate by filing Criminal Appeal No.265/2003 before the Additional District and Sessions Court, Thodupuzha. The Sessions judge dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and the sentence. The petitioner is challenging the the judgments of the courts below.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that there is no rule in criminal law that there cannot be any conviction on the basis of the evidence of official witnesses alone. It is pointed out that although the mahazar witnesses turned hostile, they admitted their signature in the mahazar. Despite the fact that the petitioner cross examined PWs 1 and 5 extensively, nothing favourable to the petitioner has been brought out in cross examination. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the evidence of PWs 1 and 5, who apprehended the petitioner and conducted the investigation, is sufficient to prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond a reasonable doubt. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner was apprehended at 12.15 in the night between 17.12.1996 and 18.12.1996, and actually he was apprehended on 18.12.1996. Therefore, there is no culpable delay in production of the contraband before the court on 19.12.1996. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not been able to prove prejudice caused to him on account of the alleged delay. It is further submitted that the fact that he was arrested only on 14.10.1999 is no ground to acquit the petitioner, insofar as in respect there also, no prejudice has been caused to the defence of the petitioner.