SASI S/O. NARAYANAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED in S.C. No. 528/2004 on the file of the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court -I), Thiruvananthapuram is the appellant. He was found guilty under Sections 55(a) and 8(1) read with Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act and he was convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 = hears and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ - and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The above conviction and sentence awarded against the appellant are assailed in this appeal.

(2.) THE trial court has mainly relied on the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 who are the official witnesses. Though the prosecution examined PW1 as an independent witness, he had not supported the prosecution and he was declared hostile to the prosecution. PW2 who detected the offence stated that while they were on patrol duty and when they reached at Narikkal - Kalavarathala road, they saw the appellant coming in opposite direction with a black can having a capacity of 2 = litres. The appellant, on seeing the excise party, attempted to retreat, but he was detained and examined the can in the presence of independent witnesses. On examination, it was found that it was arrack. The appellant was arrested and on preparing Ext.P1 mahazar seized the can and sealed the sane and affixed a label. He further stated that the appellant and MO1 can were produced before the Excise Office and registered the case against the appellant. The evidence of this witness is corroborated with the evidence of PW3 who accompanied PW2 at the time of detection of the crime. PW4 was the Excise Inspector who filed the final charge. Ext.P7 chemical analysis report would show that the sample contained 30.01% ethyl alcohol by volume.

(3.) THE prosecution case against the appellant is that he was found in possession of 2 = litres of arrack. On the side of the prosecution PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exts.P1 to P7 and MO1 were marked. When the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he stated that he was innocent and he was falsely implicated by the Excise officials. Though PW1 was examined as an independent witness, he was declared hostile to the prosecution. PWs.3 and 4 had given evidence in support of the prosecution case. They are the official witnesses. There is no legal bar for relying on the testimonies of the official witness to prove the prosecution case provided that their evidence is free from doubt or any other infirmity.