ASHOKAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the accused against the conviction and sentence in S.C.No.611/1999 of Additional District & Sessions Judge (Adhoc) -II, Kollam. The appellants were charge sheeted u/s.55(a) and (i) of the Abkari Act on allegation that on 10.9.1997 at 5.30 p.m., they were found in possession of seven litres of arrack in 10 litre kannas at Parippally Village, Kottackakom cherri in the Pachayil property near Pulikuzhy junction . The Sub Inspector of Police, Paripally conducted a search and seized the arrack from the property of the 1st accused, while conducting sale. The contraband articles were seized after preparing a mahazar. After completing investigation, the Sub Inspector, Parippally laid charge against the accused u/s.55(a) and (g) of the Abkari Act before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paravoor, from there, the case was committed to Sessions Court. During trial, prosecution examined PW1 to PW4 and marked Exts.P1 to P4. MO1 was admitted as material object. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning them under S.313 Cr.P.C. They did not adduce any defence evidence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years each and fine of 1 lakh each u/s.55(i) of the Abkari Act, in default, simple imprisonment for one year each. No separate sentence was imposed u/s.55(a) of the Abkari Act. Being aggrieved by that, they preferred this appeal.

(2.) Heard both sides. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to prove the possession of the property, from where MO1 was seized. No search memorandum was prepared and no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to show that the seized articles were properly produced before Court in a tamper proof condition.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor has no objection with regard to the above arguments.