SULTAN @ KURIYAKOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein are the accused Nos.1 & 2 in S.C.No.756 of 2008 of the Court of Session, Thrissur. They faced prosecution in the court below along with three others including their father, on the allegation that on 26.07.2005, when the Sub Inspector of Police, Vellikulangara conducted a search at the house of the accused Nos.1 and 2, which stands in the name of their father(5 th accused), the accused were found possessing huge quantity of 152 litres of illicit liquor of different varieties, contained in 128 bottles. The Sub Inspector happened to conduct the said search on an information given by these appellants when they were arrested in another crime. The huge quantity of illicit liquor contained in 128 bottles was seized by the Sub Inspector as per a search list and a mahazar in the presence of these two appellants. The house searched by the Sub Inspector belongs to the father of these appellants. He is the 5 th accused. Pending trial he died, and thus the charge against him abated. The accused Nos.3 and 4 were arraigned by the police as accused on the basis of the statements given by the appellants. Investigation was taken over the Circle Inspector of Police, Puthukkad, and he submitted final report in Court. On committal, the case came up before the Court of Session, from where it was made over to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc-I, Thrissur for trial and disposal.

(2.) All the four accused (A1 to A4) appeared before the trial court, and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them under Sections 55(a), (b), (h), (g), (i) and 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act ("the Act"). The prosecution examined 15 witnesses in the trial court, and proved Exts.P1 to P15 documents. MO1 to MO3 properties were also identified during trial. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused maintained a defence that the house searched by the police belongs to their father, that they have nothing to do with the house except that they are the sons of the owner of the house, that they are not residents or occupants of the house, and they have nothing to do with the liquor bottles seized by the police. The accused examined one witness on their side. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused Nos.3 and 4 not guilty of any offence, and accordingly, they were acquitted. The accused Nos.1 and 2 were found not guilty under Sections 55(b), (h), and (i) of the Act. However, they were found guilty under Sections 58 and 55(a) of the Act. On conviction the accused Nos.1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each, and to pay a fine Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each by judgment dated 14.02.2011. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the two accused have come up in appeal.

(3.) When this appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that these appellants have nothing to do with the liquor bottles seized in this case by the police, and they are in not fact the occupants or residents of the house from where the liquor bottles were seized. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the liquor bottles were seized at the instance of the accused from their house.