MALU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short point falls for decision is whether the Assistant Excise Inspector under the Abkari Act was competent to detect an offence under the Act occurred on 25 -04 -1997. Prosecution case, in short, is that the revision petitioner was found carrying 2 litres of illicit arrack in a can through a public road. The offence was detected by PW1, who admittedly was the Assistant Excise Inspector. He not only detected the offence, arrested the accused and registered Ext. P2 crime and occurrence report. Further, he investigated the case. All these facts are evident from the impugned judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -III, Kozhikode. Aggrieved by the conviction awarded by the learned Magistrate, the revision petitioner approached the Sessions Court with a criminal appeal, which was dismissed. Hence this criminal revision petition.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) THAT was considered and followed by another learned Single Judge in Sasidharan v. State of Kerala : (2012(2) K.L.T. 392). The point laid down is thus: