AMEER BABU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in S.C. No. 54/2009 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Payyannur is the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner was charge sheeted by the Excise Inspector, Pappinisseri excise range in Crime No. 28/2007 of Pappinisseri excise range under section 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act, but wrongly shown as section 55(a) of the Abkari Act.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that on 3.8.2007 at 6 p.m the revision petitioner was found to be in possession of 3 litres of arrack and found transiting the same along the road leading to Malliyottu Kavu at Cheruthazham in violation of the provisions of the Abkari Act and thereby he had committed the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. In fact, it ought to have charged under Section 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. After investigation, final report was filed and it was taken on file as C.P. No. 94/2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur and thereafter it was committed to Sessions Court, Thalassery where it was taken as S.T. No. 54/2009 and thereafter it was made over to Assistant Sessions Court, Payyannur for disposal. When the revision petitioner was produced before that court, after hearing the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also Additional Public Prosecutor, charge under Section 55(a) of the Abkai Act was framed and the same was read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, Pws 1 to 7 were examined and Exts.P1 to P9 were marked on their side. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the revision petitioner was questioned under section 313 of the Code and he denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against him in the prosecution evidence. He had further stated that he had not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the case. Since the evidence advanced in the case did not warrant an acquittal under Section 232 of the Code, the revision petitioner was called upon to enter on his defence, but no defence evidence was adduced. After considering the evidence on record, the trial court found the revision petitioner guilty under section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay fine of Rs. One lakh, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 60 days. Set off was allowed for the period of detention already undergone by him under section 428 of the Code. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner filed Crl.A. No. 198/2012 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery through jail authorities and it was made over to Additional Sessions Court, Adhoc-II, Thalassery for disposal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed against him. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed by the revision petitioner/accused before the court below through jail authorities and legal aid counsel was provided for conducting the case.

(3.) Heard the legal aid counsel Sri. Lijoy Parakkal Varghese and the learned Public Prosecutor. As State alone is the respondent, this Court felt that the revision can be admitted and disposed of today itself on merit.