RAMAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants were accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.C. No. 368/2002 on the file of the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No. II, Palakkad. They faced trial for the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act on the allegation that they possessed and transported 44,640 liters of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. To prove the allegation against the appellants, PWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exts. P1, to P6 were marked. MOs 1 and 2 were also marked. After closing the evidence, the appellants were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the allegation and stated that they were falsely implicated by the excise officials. On the side of the prosecution Exts. D1, D2, D2(a) and D2(b) were marked. Relying on the evidence adduced on both sides, the trial court found both the appellants were guilty of the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and they were convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. The judgment of the trial court is challenged in this appeal.

(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor and pursued the materials placed on records.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellants has taken the following contentions in challenging the judgment under appeal: Firstly, it is contended that the trial court has committed serious error in accepting the evidence of official witnesses to find the appellants guilty under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, as there is no independent witness to support the prosecution case. It is also contended that the findings of the trial court that the appellants had committed an offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act is not legally sustainable in the light of the principles laid down in two decisions Surenderan v. State of Kerala, 2004 1 KerLT 404 . Sudhepan @ Anivan v. State of Kerala, 2005 2 KerLT 631. It is further contended that the sentences awarded against the appellants are excessive.