LAWS(KER)-2007-11-85

KUTTAPPAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On November 07, 2007
KUTTAPPAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused in S.C. No. 200/2002 on the file of the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I) Thodupuzha is the appellant. He was charge- sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. The prosecution allegation against the appellant is that on 18-7-2000 at at about 6.10 P.M. the appellant was found in unauthorized possession of 23 bottles each containing 375 ml. Aristocrat Brandy at his shop at a place called Muniyara. To prove the allegation, the prosecution examined PWs.1 and 4 and Exts.P1 to P5 and MO.I and MO2 series were marked. When the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he denied the allegation levelled against him and stated that he had not involved in the commission of the offence as alleged by the prosecution. Relying on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial court found that the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and he was convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The above conviction and sentence awarded against the appellant are assailed in this appeal.

(2.) Though various grounds are urged by the the learned Counsel for the appellant, the learned Counsel pressed only two grounds. Firstly, it is contended that the finding of the trial court that the appellant has committed an offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act is not tenable in the light of two decisions reported in Surendran v. State of Kerala, 2004 1 KerLT 404, Sudhepan @ Aniyan v. State of Kerala, 2005 2 KerLT 631 Secondly, it is contended that even if the evidence of prosecution witnesses is accepted, the appellant can be punished under Section 63 of the Abkari Act as per decisions Sabu v. State of Kerala, 2007 4 KerLT 169and Mohanan v. State of Kerala, 2008 1 KerLJ 436.

(3.) This Court heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.