GOPAKUMAR S/O.SADASIVAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE third accused in S.C.No.613 of 1999 of the Additional Sessions Court(Adhoc-II), Kollam, who stands convicted under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one more year, has come up in appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that, the first accused is the licensee of the toddy shop No.81 situated by the side of Kalluvathukkal-Nadakkal road and second accused is the manager of the shop, and that on 4.6.1998 at 6.30 p.m., the appellant with the knowledge and consent of A1 and A2, possessed 60 packets of arrack, each containing 150 ml, for sales at the eastern side of the well situated within the compound where the toddy shop is situated. PW4, Sub Inspector of Police, Parippally, along with PWs.2 and 3 while on patrol duty got information regarding the sales of arrack at the compound of the toddy shop and thereby they rushed to the spot and found the appellant in possession of the said contraband. The appellant was placed under arrest and the contraband was seized. A sample of 350 ml was drawn. He registered Crime No.13 of 1998 against the appellant, through Ext.P2 FIR. The appellant was produced before court. The contraband was produced before court though Ext.P3 property list and requisition was filed for subjecting the sample to chemical analysis. On getting Ext.P4 certificate of chemical analysis, the final report was filed by PW5 who was the successor in office to PW4. A1 and A2 were absconding.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there is no independent evidence to prove the occurrence. There is delay in producing the contraband before court, and there is no sufficient evidence to prove as to the proper custody of the contraband till its production before court. On all these grounds, the conviction is bad in law, it is argued. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that there is sufficient evidence to connect the appellant with the crime and there are no irregularities or illegalities in the procedure adopted by the investigating officer.