LALAN S/O DIVAKARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.42/2002 on the files of the court of the Additional Sessions Judge -III. (Adhoc) Fast Track No.I, Thrissur. He was convicted for the offence under section 58 of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/ - and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 31.3.2000 PW1, the Sub Inspector of Police then attached to Vettilappara police station along with police party were on patrol duty and on getting information that a person is selling arrack from the rubber estate belonging to one Manu, S/o. Thomas that situates behind the community hall, Athirappilly Panchayath they reached the spot at about 5.15 pm and found the appellant there holding a can having capacity of two litres. On seeing the police party he fled from there and he was chased and intercepted and thereupon PW1 verified the can and upon tasting and smelling found that the liquid contained 3/4th thereof is arrack. A glass tumbler was also seized from his possession. They were seized by PW1 under Ext.P1 mahazar. From the seized contraband liquid samples were drawn in three bottles each having a capacity of 180 ml. PW1 then took the residue liquid in MO1 can, samples and the appellant who was arrested under Ext.P5 memo to Vettilappara police station and crime No.14/2000 was registered there. PW5 conducted the investigation initially and thereafter he handed over the investigation to PW6. PW5 prepared the forwarding note and sent the samples for chemical analysis through court. Ext.P9 is the chemical analysis report. As per Ext.P9 the samples contained in the three bottles upon analysis found to have contained 43.16, 43.49 and 37.63 percentage by volume of ethyl alcohol, respectively. PW6 completed the investigation and filed the final report. To prove the charge against the appellant the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 6 and got marked Exts.P1 to P9. MOs1 and 2 were also identified. After the closure of the prosecution evidence all the incriminating circumstances were put to the appellant/accused in the examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied all such circumstances. Finding that the appellant was not entitled to be acquitted under section 232 Cr.P.C. he was asked to enter on his defence. However, the appellant/accused did not adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary. On a careful evaluation of the evidence on records and upon hearing the arguments advanced by both sides the learned Sessions Judge found that the evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 5 with Ext.P1 seizure mahazar, Ext.P3 list of property and Ext.P9 certificate of chemical analyst would prove the guilt of the accused and accordingly found him guilty under section 58 of the Abkari Act. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Public Prosecutor.