SUMATHY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the accused against the judgment of conviction and sentence in S.C.No.1939/2001 of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram u/s.8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. The charge against the appellant is that on 17.09.1998 at 12.30 p.m, she was found in possession of 1 litre of arrack in MO1 on the northern side of Alamcode bridge across Amayizhanchan thodu by the Preventive Officer, Excise Range Office, Thiruvananthapuram. She was arrested and the contraband articles were seized, reaching at the Excise Office, registered a crime. After completing investigation, the Excise Inspector, Excise Range, Thiruvananthapuram laid charge before Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thiruvananthapuram. Subsequently, the case was committed to Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram from there it was made over to Additional Sessions Judge.

(2.) In pursuance of the charge, prosecution examined five witnesses and marked Exts.P1 to P4 as documentary evidence. MO1 was admitted as material object. While questioning the accused, she denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against her. In support of her defence contention DW1 was examined in the trial Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused u/s.8(1) & (2) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and fine of 1 lakh in default imprisonment for six months. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused preferred this appeal.

(3.) Heard both sides. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to show that articles seized were properly sealed and affixed label on it. There was no forwarding note prepared at the time of sending the sample to the Magistrate therefore it is doubtful whether the very same article was sent to the chemical examination lab.