SAIMON S/O. JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein challenges the conviction and sentence under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act. He faced prosecution in S.C No.34 of 2000 before the Court of Session, Kollam on the allegation that on 11.9.1998, he was found possessing and transporting a total quantity of 12.750 litres of Indian made foreign liquor contained in 13 bottles of 750 ml capacity and 8 bottles of 375 ml capacity in the Autorickshaw No.KL -2G 396. He was arrested by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kollam East and the quantity of liquor was seized as per mahazar. The accused/appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Section 55 (a) of the Kerala Abkari Act by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Kollam.

(2.) The prosecution examined three witnesses in the trial court and marked Exts.P1 to P4 and also M.O1 and M.OII properties. Of the two items of properties, MO1 series are the five bottles containing sample liquor taken, according to the detecting officer, from the seized quantity of liquor, and MOII series are the other bottles seized as per mahazar. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances and maintained a stand of total denial. On an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge found him guilty under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act. On conviction thereunder, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and also to pay a fine of 1,00,000/ - (Rupees One lakh only). Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused has now come up in appeal.

(3.) Of the three witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW3 is the Sub Inspector, PW2 is the Police Constable, who accompanied PW2, and PW1 is an independent witness. PW1 turned hostile to the prosecution during trial. He did not support the prosecution. However, he admitted his signature in the mahazar. PW3 and PW2 gave definite evidence regarding seizure of some quantity of liquor from the hands of the accused. The Sub Inspector also gave evidence that sample was taken in five bottles and that the sample bottles, and also the other bottles, were sealed according to law. The defence is mainly on this aspect.