SEETHARAMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the judgment dated 25.10.2011 in S.C. No. 14 of 2011 of the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) III - Kasaragod, and the conviction and sentence imposed, the accused therein preferred this appeal.

(2.) The prosecution case is that, while P.W. 1 and party were conducting patrol duty at Devaragare on 27.1.2005 at 10.10 a.m., they saw an autorickshaw bearing registration No. KL-14 B-5409 coming towards them and the autorickshaw has taken sudden deviation from there and it was plied away. But the police followed the autorickshaw and intercepted it from a laterite quarry in the immovable property of one K. Lakshmi at Devaragare and on inspection of the autorickshaw, he found that the accused was the traveler in it and recovered 2 white plastic cans each of containing 35 litres each of illicit arrack. Thus according to the police, the accused two in numbers have committed the offence punishable under section 58 of the Abkari Act. On completing the investigation, the Sub Inspector of police, Badiadka police station, laid report in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kasaragod and consequently C.P. No. 119 of 2006 was instituted and later the learned Magistrate committed the case to the trial court where it was received as S.C. No. 14 of 2011 and finally it was made over to the present trial court for disposal. Though summons issued, the other accused who was the driver of the vehicle alone appeared and faced the trial. But the present appellant, who is another accused had absconded. Accordingly, the case against the present appellant was refilled as S.C. No. 14 of 2011. Subsequently, under coercive steps, the present appellant was secured and accordingly after hearing the prosecution as well as the defence, a formal charge was framed against the accused under section 58 of the Abkari Act, which when read over and explained to the accused in malayalam he pleaded not guilty and he denied the charge. Consequently, the prosecution adduced its evidence by examining Pws. 1 to 6 and producing Exts. P1 to P9 documents. No evidence whatsoever adduced from the side of the defence. The trial court finally found that the prosecution has adduced legal and acceptable evidence to bring home the guilt of the accused punishable under section 58 of the Abkari Act and accordingly he is found guilty for the said offence and he is convicted thereunder. On such conviction, the accused sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 4 years for the offence under section 58 of the Abkari Act and to pay fine of Rs. 1 lakh and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. Set off is allowed. It is the above finding and order of conviction and sentence challenged in this appeal.

(3.) As the appellant is undergoing imprisonment in pursuance to the above judgment, he preferred the present appeal from jail and on receiving the appeal, as ordered by this Court, the Registry has appointed Adv. Sri. Manju Antony as State Brief to prosecute the appeal for and on behalf of the appellant. Thus, I have heard Adv. Sri. Manju Antony, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. V.H. Jasmine, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.