SREEKUMARAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.431/03 and by judgment dated 23.8.2005 of the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track court-II, Allappuzha, by which the appellant/accused is convicted and sentenced under section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and hence the appellant/ accused in the above sessions case, preferred this appeal challenging the above judgment.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 7.3.2002 at about 4 p.m., when PW2-the Preventive Officer of Excise Circle office, Mavelikkara, along with his party were conducting patrol duty, the appellant was found possessing about 10 ltrs. of arrack in a kannas having capacity of 10 ltrs. kept in a bag, on the panchayat road in front of the house of one Vaidyan thundil Sahadevan near Kunnel Subramoniya Swamy temple at Eramathoor Muri in Palamel village and thereby the appellant has committed the offence punishable under section 8(1) and (2) of the Kerala Abkari Act. During the trial of the case, a formal charge for the offence under section 55(a) was framed against the appellant/accused, which when read over and explained to him, he denied the same and pleaded not guilty. Thus, the prosecution by examining Pws.1 to 5 and producing Exts.P1 to P5 adduced its evidence. M.Os.1 and 2 were identified and marked as material objects. From the side of the defence, Dws.1 and 2 were examined and produced Ext.D1 as well as Ext.X1. The defence took a contention to the effect that actually one Shaji was taken into custody for keeping illicit arrack, but upon his influence, after letting him free, the appellant was arrested and taken into custody from his panshop. The trial court finally found that the appellant has committed the offence under section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act as alleged by the prosecution and accordingly he is convicted thereunder. On such conviction, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs. 1 lakh and in default of payment, he is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. Set off was allowed.

(3.) Heard Adv.Sri.Vinoy Varghese Kallummoottil learned counsel for the appellant and Adv.Sri.E.M.Abdul Khadir learned Public Prosecutor.