SANTHOSH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the judgment dated 26.5.2003 in S.C.No.71 of 2000 of the court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (ADHOC) Court-I, Pathanamthitta, the appellant/the sole accused therein preferred this appeal as he is aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed on him for the offences under Sections 55(a) and (g) of the Abkari Act.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 21.9.1997, when the S.I. Of Police, Peunadu Police Station was on patrol duty accompanied by PW4 and other police party and when they reached Kizhakke Mampara, they got an information that the accused is selling illicit arrack and storing apparatus for the purpose of distilling illicit arrack in his house and on the basis of that information, when they reached near the house of the accused, they saw the accused running with MO1 can in his hand. But, he was apprehended and when on inspection of the can, the liquid contained therein is identified as illicit arrack by smelling and tasting and on further enquiry, they detected certain implements being kept for distilling illicit arrack and the accused as well as the contraband article and the implements were seized. Thus, according to the prosecution, the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 55(a) and (g) of the Abkari Act.

(3.) On the basis of the above allegation, crime No.129 of 1997 was registered in the Perunadu Police Station for the said offences and on completing the investigation, a report was filed and when the accused appeared before the trial court, after perusal of the prosecution materials and after hearing both the prosecution as well as the defence, a formal charge was framed against him 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 same and pleaded not guilty. Consequently, the prosecution adduced its evidence by examining Pws.1 to 5 and producing Exts.P1 to P9 documents. From the side of the defence, DW1 was examined and produced Ext.D1. Besides the above, from the side of the prosecution, Mos.1 to 5 are identified as material objects. On the basis of the above evidence and materials, the trial court has found that the appellant/accused was in possession of arrack and distilling apparatus as alleged by the prosecution and accordingly, he was found guilty for the offences under Sections 55(a) and (g) of the Abkari Act and accordingly, he was convicted thereunder. On such conviction, the appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1 lakh on each count and in default, he was directed to undergo three months more simple imprisonment and while allowing set off under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C., the substantive sentence is ordered to be run concurrently. It is the above finding, the order of conviction and sentence challenged in this appeal.