K.NARAYANAN Vs. EXCISE INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED in S.C.No.255/2000 of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Kasaragod, who stands convicted under Sections 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of 1 lakh, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six more months, has come up in appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that, on 16.01.1999 at 1.00 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of 8 litres of illicit arrack in a black can of 10 litre capacity at Nalakkara in Periya Village in Hosdurg Taluk. The crime was detected while the excise party under the leadership of one Preventive Officer named Karunakaran was engaged on patrol duty. The appellant was placed under arrest and the contraband was seized through Ext.P1 mahazar. The can contained 8 litres of arrack, out of which 300 ml. was drawn as sample in a 375 ml. bottle. The Preventive Officer produced the appellant along with the material objects and records before PW4, Excise Inspector of Hosdurg Range, who, in turn, registered Ext.P5 occurrence report. Ext.P3 forwarding note was given and he produced the appellant before court. The properties were sent to court on 16.01.1999.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the detecting officer was not examined before the court below and the only evidence adduced by the prosecution is that of PW1, who was one of the Excise Guards allegedly present along with the Preventive Officer named Karunakaran, who allegedly detected the offence. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the independent witnesses cited by the prosecution have turned hostile to the prosecution and did not support the prosecution case regarding seizure and in such case, the prosecution ought to have obtained some other corroboration by examining at least other officials, who were allegedly present along with PW1.