SUDHEPAN @ ANIYAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant - a prisoner undergoing imprisonment in a prosecution under S.55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act, assails the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence imposed on him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The appellant was found guilty, convicted and sentenced under S.55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1, 00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year.

(2.) The prosecution alleged that at 12 noon on 15-12-2000 when the police party led by PW 5 of which PWs 3 and 4 were allegedly members raided the house of one Soman, the appellant and his elder brother (who is now no more) were found there having in their possession 7 litres of arrack in M.O.1 can. The contraband articles were seized by PW 5 under Ext. P 1 seizure mahazar in the presence of PWs 1 to 4. PWs 1 and 2 are allegedly independent attestors to Ext. P 1 seizure mahazar. Ext. P 2 is the report sent by PW 5 to the court. Ext. P 3 is the FIR registered by him. The investigation was conducted by PW 6. Ext. P 4 is the property list under which the contraband articles were produced before the learned Magistrate. Ext. P 5 is the report of the Joint Chemical Examiner to confirm that the contraband article seized was arrack. M.O.1 is the container in which the contraband article was kept in the possession of the accused. M.O. 2 is the sample bottle in which the sample was drawn. M.O.3 is the glass tumbler which was in the possession of the appellant and his brother who were allegedly engaging themselves in the sale of illicit arrack.

(3.) Cognizance was taken on the basis of the final report submitted by PW 6. The case was committed to the Court of Session. The accused denied the offence alleged against him. Thereupon, PWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exts. P 1 to P5 were marked on the side of the prosecution. M.Os. 1 to 3 were also marked. As stated earlier, the brother of the appellant had expired even before the matter came up for trial. It was alleged that the appellant's brother had ran away from the scene of occurrence while the appellant was arrested. At the scene of the crime his brother could not allegedly be apprehended by the police.