SANAL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment dated 27.7.2005 in S.C.No.971 of 2001 of the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (ADHOC) No.II, Thiruvananthapuram is under challenge in this appeal, which is preferred by the sole accused in the above sessions case, as he is aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed against him under Sections 55(a) and (g) of the Abkari Act.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on getting reliable information that one Sanal Kumar, Anu Sadanam, Ayilam Plavila Desom is dealing with arrack and wash by having possession of the same, PW4 Preventive Officer along with Excise party proceeded to the spot after preparing the search memorandum. When the Excise party reached, the said Sanal Kumar was present in the house and through the search conducted in the said house, in the presence of the accused and the witnesses, wash in a black can having the capacity of 35 litres and arrack in a white can having the capacity of 10 litres were seized. During the trial of the case, a formal charge was framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 55(a) and (g) of the Abkari Act, which when read over and explained to the accused, he denied the charge and pleaded not guilty and consequently, the prosecution adduced its evidence by examining Pws.1 to 5 and produced Exts.P1 to P7. Mos.1 and 2 were identified as material objects. Finally, the trial court, rejecting the plea of the accused, held that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 55(a) and (g) of the Abkari Act and accordingly, he is convicted thereunder. On such conviction, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rupees One Lakh and in default of payment, he is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 55(a) and similarly, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rupees One lakh and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 55(g). It is ordered that the sentence will run concurrently and set off is allowed.

(3.) Heard Sri.M.Dinesh. learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.M.T.Sheeba, the learned Public Prosecutor.