MURALEEDHARAN Vs. S I OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the second accused in S.C. No. 608 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court (Ad hoc) Court No. I, Kollam. He faced trial along with the first accused for the offence punishable under S.55(a) and (i) of the Abkari Act.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 14/02/1999 at about 4 p.m. when PW 3, the Sub Inspector of Police, along with PW 2 and other police constables reached Toddy shop No. 90 at Pallimoncheri, the first accused was found keeping possession of 12 litres of arrack mixed with toddy for sale and on enquiry it was revealed that the appellant was the licensee of the shop. PW 3 conducted a search and found 50 bottles containing 200 ml. of arrack and 20 bottles containing 100 ml. arrack in the store room of the toddy shop. The arrack contained in two bottles of 200 ml. and in one bottle of 100 ml. were taken as samples in one bottle of 750 ml. capacity. The remaining 48 bottles containing 200 ml. of arrack and 19 bottles containing 100 ml. of arrack along with the three empty bottles and the boxes in which they were kept were seized as per Ext. P1 mahazar in the presence of the first accused and PWs 1 and 2. The first accused was arrested on the spot and the appellant who was absconding was later arrested and produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court on 19/09/2000. The sample taken from the contraband articles was sent for chemical analysis. Ext. P6 is the chemical analysis report which shows that the sample contained 26.02% by volume of ethyl alcohol. On the above allegations, the appellant and the first accused faced trial. To prove the case against the appellant and the first accused, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 4 and produced Exts. P1 to P8 as well as MOs. I to III. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the defence. After closing the prosecution evidence, the appellant and the first accused were questioned under S.313 CrPC. and they denied commission of any offence as alleged by the prosecution and stated that they were falsely implicated by the police. After considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Trial Court found the first accused guilty under S.55(a) of the Abkari Act, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. The appellant was found guilty under S.55(i) of the Abkari Act. He was convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further of two years. The above conviction and sentence ordered against the appellant is challenged in this appeal.

(3.) This Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.