RAGHU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the offence under Section 8(1) & (2) of the Abkari Act by judgment dated 06/10/2003 in S.C.No.364 of 2001 of the court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc -II), Thodupuzha, the above Appeal is preferred, at the instance of the sole accused in the above Sessions Case.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that, on 10/9/2000 at about 7.45 p.m., when the S.I. of Police, Idukki and party were conducting patrol duty and when they reached Painavu area, they got reliable information regarding the sale of illicit liquor by the accused and on reaching the place near the Telephone Exchange Building at Painavu, they saw the accused and he was intercepted and on search of his body a bottle having the capacity of 375 ml. containing arrack was detected from the waist of the accused and he was arrested then and there and on further questioning, he had divulged about the concealment of arrack in a bottle as well as in a can in two different places and the same were also recovered and the total quantity of arrack so recovered would comes to 6.275 litres. Thus, according to the prosecution, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 8(1) & (2) of the Abkari Act.

(3.) WHEN the accused initially appeared before the court of Assistant Sessions Judge, after furnishing the prosecution materials to him and after hearing the prosecution as well as the defence, a formal charge was framed and when the same was read over and explained to the accused, he denied the same and pleaded not guilty. Thereafter the case was transferred to the present trial court. During the further trial, the prosecution adduced its evidence by examining PWs.1 to 7 and producing Exts.P1 to P12, P9(a) & P12(a) documents. MOs.1 and 2 were identified as material objects. Though the defence had not adduced any separate evidence, the contradictory portions of 161 statement of the witnesses are marked as Exts.D1 to D3. After considering the available evidence and materials, the learned Judge of the trial court has found that the prosecution has established the charge levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly the accused is found guilty and he is convicted for the offence under Section 8(1) & (2) of the Abkari Act. On such conviction, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years and to pay a fine of Rupees one lakh and in default he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Set off is allowed. It is the above finding and order of conviction that are challenged in this appeal.