KUNJAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL by the accused convicted for an offence under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act by the trial court on the following allegations:

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

(3.) PW 1 is the detecting officer. He was the Excise Circle Inspector of Aluva Excise Range. On 28 -06 -2001, he along with PW 2 were engaged in patrol duty. When he reached at Kothamangalam, a person informed him that the appellant had kept implements for distilling illicit arrack. Thereafter, a search memo was prepared and it was sent to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Then they went to the house of the appellant and found in the corner of a room in his house that a copper pot having a capacity of about 5 litre was kept. On the bottom of the pot, they found a soldered tube having about 1.5 inches diameter. Another copper tube with threads could also be seen. Besides, he had kept about 5 kg of kariyilampatta. The above bark is mainly used for distillation of illicit arrack. The material objects are marked as MO's 1 to 3. Thereafter, Ext. P1 mahazar was prepared from the place of detection and the appellant was arrested. Arrest memo is Ext. P2, which contains the signature of the appellant. Arrest was intimated to wife of the appellant. The accused and the objectionable articles were removed to the Excise Office. Search list is Ext. P4. This witness was extensively cross examined. During the cross examination, it was suggested that the material objects, namely copper vessels and pipes, could be used for distillation of lemon grass. Even though PW 1 initially denied the suggestion, later he admitted that it could be used for distillation of lemon grass as well. PW 1 further deposed that the vessels recovered from the house of the appellant was smelling alcohol.