KUMARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in S.C. No. 428/2005 on the file of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-II, Thodupuzha. The aforesaid case arises from Crime No. 187/2003 of Rajakkadu Police Station which was registered against them for the offences punishable under Ss. 8(1)(2) and 55(a)(b) (f)(g) and (h) of the Kerala Abkari Act.

(2.) The prosecution case is that, the contraband articles such as spirit, coloured spirit etc. were found hidden in a secret chamber in a poultry shed near to the residence of 1st accused. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 who are the sons of the 1st accused are also residing along with him. The seizure of the aforesaid articles were made during an inspection conducted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Rajakkadu Police Station on the basis of an information received to the effect that the manufacturing of illicit liquor is taking place in the aforesaid premises. According to the prosecution, the accused numbers 1 to 3 were present in the residence at the relevant time and they were arrested on 15/9/2003 at 6 p.m. and the articles were seized. On the basis of the same, the aforesaid crime was registered and upon completing the investigation, final report was submitted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly where it was taken into file as C.P. No. 90/2004. After completing the legal formalities, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha and later the same was made over to the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)-II, Thodupuzha where it was tried as S.C. No. 428/2005.

(3.) In support of the prosecution case, PWs. 1 to 7 were examined, Exhibits P1 to P13 were marked. Material objects MO1 to MO11 were identified. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Sec. 313 of the Cr.PC and incriminating materials brought out during the course of trial were put to them. They denied the same. The appellant/1st accused stated that the shed from which the contraband articles seized is not in his possession. The 2nd and 3rd appellants/accused Nos. 2 and 3 have stated that they are not residing along with the 1st respondent in the house which is adjacent to the shed from which the articles were seized. In support of their contentions, DW 1 was examined.