VIJAYAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused in S.C. No. 197/2001 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-II) Alappuzha is the appellant herein. The appellant was charge sheeted by the Excise Inspector, Chengannur in Crime No. 101/1993 of that Excise Range under Section 55(a) and (i) of the Abkari Act (which ought to be under Section 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act).

(2.) The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that on 23.12.1998, at about 5.45 pm, the accused was found to be in possession of two litres of arrack near the house of one 'Sreedharan' for the purpose of sale, in violation of the provisions of the Abkari Act and thereby, he had committed the offence punishable under Section 55(a) and (i) of the Abkari Act. After investigation, final report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Chengannur where it was taken on file as C.P. No. 54 of 2000. After complying with the formalities, the learned Magistrate committed the case to Sessions Court, Alappuzha under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called 'the Code'). After committal, the Sessions Judge, Alappuzha took cognizance of the case as S.C. No.197/2001 and thereafter it was made over to the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-II) Alappuzha for disposal.

(3.) When the accused appeared before the court below, after hearing both sides, charge under Section 55(a) and (i) of the Abkari Act was framed against the accused 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 6 were examined and Exts.P1 to P4 and MOs1 to 3 were marked on the side of the prosecution. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused 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 no article was seized from his possession and he has been falsely implicated in the case. Since the evidence in this case did not warrant an acquittal under Section 232 of the Code, the accused was called upon to enter on his defence. DW1 was examined on the side of the accused and Ext.D1 was marked in the evidence of CW2 as contradiction. After considering the evidence on record, court below found the appellant guilty under Section 55(a) and (i) of the Abkari Act, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him 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 was allowed for the period of detention has already been undergone by him under Section 428 of the Code. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal has been preferred by the appellant before the court below.