PHILIP SAMUEL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the conviction and sentence in S.C. No. 296/2003 of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court -II, Pathanamthitta u/s.8 of the Abkari Act. The charge against the appellant is that on 27.10.1998 at 2.30 p.m. the Excise Inspector, Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Squad, Pathanamthitta was conducting patrol duty within his jurisdiction. When he reached at Vadasserykara, the accused was found carrying a plastic sack in front of Government LP School in Vadasserikkara, the Excise Inspector intercepted him, inspected the plastic sack and detected 20 bottles of arrack each containing 375 ml. The appellant was arrested and contraband articles were seized and entrusted to the Excise Range Office, Ranny where they registered a case. The Excise Inspector, Ranni conducted investigation and laid charge before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranny. Subsequently, it was committed to Sessions Court, pathanamthitta. The case was later made over to Additional Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta.

(2.) During trial, prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and marked Exts.P1 to P7. The material objects MO1 and MO2 were admitted in evidence. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning him. He did not adduce any defence evidence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant u/s.8 (1) and (2) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default of payment of fine, imprisonment for one year. Being aggrieved by that, he preferred this appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the alleged seizure was not proved in this case. At the time of seizure, 300ml arrack was taken as sample in 375ml bottle and sealed at the place of occurrence itself. It was sent over to the chemical examiner's lab for examination and obtained Ext.P6 certificate, in which the quantity of the sample mentioned was full 180ml. The disparity in the quantity shows that the sample taken from the place of occurrence was not produced before Court and therefore, the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt.