THACKANKOT SUKUMARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in S.C 284/2000 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Tellicherry is the appellant herein. The appellant was charge sheeted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Payangadi Police Station in Crime No.60/2000 under Section 58 of the Abkari Act (Ought to be under Section 8(1) of the Abkari Act).

(2.) The case of the prosecution in nut shell was that on 09.04.2000, at about 9.10 a.m, the accused was found to be in possession of 10 litres of illicit arrack by the side of Sulthanthode palam siutated at Madayi amsom near Kozhi Bazar in violation of the provisions of the Abkari Act and thereby he had committed the offence punishable under Section 58(ought to be under Section 8 (1)) of the Abkari Act.

(3.) After investigation, final report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur, where it was taken on file as CP No. 60/2000. After complying the formalities, the learned Magistrate committed the case to Sessions Court, Tellicherry. After committal, the learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the case as S.C 284/2000 and thereafter it was made over to the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Tellicherry for disposal. When the accused appeared before the court below, after hearing both sides, charge under Section 58 of the Abkari 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 4 were examined and Exts. P1 to P5 and MO 1 and II were marked on their side. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') and he denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against him in the prosecution evidence. He had further stated that no article was seized from his possession. On 08.04.2000, he was taken from his house by the Sub Inspector of Police, Payangadi Police Station and thereafter he has been falsely implicated in the case. Since the evidence in this case did not warrant the acquittal under Section 232 of the Code, the accused was called upon to enter on his defence. His brother-in-law and his wife were examined as DWs 1 and 2 respectively. After considering the evidence on record, the court below found the appellant guilty as Section 58 of the Abkari Act (which ought to be under Section 8(1) of the Abkari Act) and convicted him thereunder and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months more. Set off as allowed for a period of detention already undergone under Section 428 of the Code. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused before the court below.