EASWARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment dtd. 26/7/2013 of Additional Sessions Court-IV (Adhoc-II), Thodupuzha( for short' court below') in SC No.83 of 2013 is assailed in the appeal on hand. The appellant is the sole accused in the case. He was found guilty by the court below for commission of an offence under Sec. 8(1) punishable under Sec. 8(2) of the Abkari Act (for short 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay Rs.1,00,000.00 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

(2.) The accused being aggrieved by the above judgment has approached this Court in the appeal on hand. Sri.T.A. Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the court below went wrong in appreciating the evidence and thus, miscarriage of justice was resulted to the appellant. According to him, the evidence tendered by the prosecution is highly insufficient to establish commission of offence under Sec. 8(1) of the Act. The sole official witness examined in the case is the preventive officer. As PW1, his specific case was that an information was received while he was at the police station and then he travelled 45 Kms in a taxi to reach the spot and there, he found the accused engaged in sale of liquor. Version of any other official witness or any independent witness was not available to corroborate the version of PW1. Apart from that there was delay in sending the contraband for chemical examination. Therefore, it is urged by the learned counsel that had the court below adverted to the drawbacks as above, it ought not to have found the appellant guilty for an offence under Sec. 8(1) of the Act and convicted and sentenced him to undergo sentence as stated above. According to the learned counsel, there is nothing wrong in relying on the version of the official witnesses if it was untainted with material discrepancies and non-creditworthiness. Oral evidence of yet another official witness must be available for it to see corroboration. According to him, the punishment provided to the appellant being grave, the court below ought to have found that the offence against the appellant stands proved by the corroborative version of official witnesses.

(3.) According to the learned counsel, after getting a reliable information, PW1 proceeded to the spot, in a vehicle which was a taxi taken by him on hire. According to him, PW1 has no explanation for travelling about 45 Kms to reach the spot in a taxi without being accompanied by any other officials. Had there been any other officials accompanying PW1, the prosecution ought to have cited and examined him as a witness to establish corroboration.