BALARAMAN S/O KANNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. Challenge raised by the appellant in this appeal is against the conviction and sentence imposed on him under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc II), Kozhikode in S.C No.433/2000. Learned trial judge found that the appellant is guilty of the said offence. The allegation made by the prosecution against the accused is that on 14-05-1999 at about 23.30 hours, the accused was found transporting 35 litres of arrack in a plastic can, which was kept on the back side of the auto rickshaw driven by him. He was driving through a public road and the police intercepted the vehicle and conducted the detection. After investigation, a charge was laid and it was committed to the Court of Sessions. The case was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. PW's 1 to 5 testified on the side of the prosecution. Exts.P1 to P10 and MO1 were marked on the side of prosecution. Ext.D1 is marked on the side of defence.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) Oral evidence in this case supported the prosecution case to a great extent. PW1 was the Police Constable attached to Atholi Police Station. He was in the party led by PW5. PW1 testified that at about 11.30 p.m on 14-05-1999 they cited the auto rickshaw driven by the accused. When it was examined, they found a can kept on the back side of the rear seat of the auto rickshaw. It was having about 35 litres capacity. On examination, it was found that illicit arrack was transported in the can. The accused was arrested. Two bottles each having a volume of 375 ml were taken as samples from the contraband. It was properly sealed. Identity of the accused was established. After arresting the accused and preparing material documents, the Officers and the accused went to the Police Station and a crime was registered. PW1 in spite of tough cross examination adhered to the prosecution case. His evidence is credible. PW5 is the detecting officer. He along with party was conducting highway patrolling on 14-05-1999. At 23.30 hours, he found the auto rickshaw driven by the accused and it was intercepted. On verification, it was found that MO1 can was kept inside the auto rickshaw. On opening MO1 can, it could be seen that it was illicit arrack. The accused was arrested for transporting illicit arrack. Two bottles apiece containing a volume of 375 ml were taken as sample. Ext.P1 mahazar was prepared from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, the accused and the contraband were taken to the Police station and a crime was registered. PW5 proved the arrest memo Ext.P8 and inspection memo Ext.P9. Remand report relating to the accused is Ext.P10. PW5 identified the accused from the dock. Property list Ext.P5 was submitted by PW5. The case was investigated by one officer having name Balakrishnan. He was not examined by the prosecution. Although PW5 was subjected to strict cross examination relating to the detection of offence, his testimony remains credible. It derives support from the testimony of PW1 and all the documents prepared contemporaneous to the incident. It can be seen that the evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses and the documents produced sufficiently prove the detection of the offence and involvement of the accused in the crime.