SUNDARAN, S/O. PARAVAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in S.C.No.138/2002 of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Manjeri, who stands convicted under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six more months, has come up in appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 02.02.1998 at 4.00 p.m, the appellant was found in possession of 2 litres of arrack at a place called Oorngaittiri. The crime was detected by PW1, Excise Inspector attached to the Excise Enforcement and Anti-Narcotic Special Squad, Malappuram, while they were engaged in patrolling duty. The contraband was seized through Ext.P2 seizure mahazar. A sample of 200ml was drawn. The appellant was placed under arrest through Ext.P1 arrest memo. PW1 went to the excise office with the appellant, material objects and records and registered Ext.P4 occurrence report. PW5 Preventive Officer of Excise, Manjeri prepared Ext.P5 property list and Ext.P6 forwarding note and produced the contraband and the sample before the court. The appellant was also produced before court. PWs.6 and 7, who were Circle Inspectors of Excise Squad, have conducted the investigation. PW8 Circle Inspector of Excise, Special Squad on obtaining Ext.P7 certificate of chemical analysis, filed the complaint.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly argued the point that the labels affixed on the sample as well as MO1 can did not contain the signatures of the witnesses and that the crime number was also shown on it. The argument is that the crime number could not have been entered on the labels at the time of seizure and the taking of sample, and therefore, the labels were subsequently manipulated and tampered with.