P.V.SAHAD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein stands convicted under Sections 55 (a) and 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act ( 'the Act' for short) in S.C 143/2011 of the Court of Session, Kasaragod.

(2.) The prosecution case is that at about 9.45 a.m on 7.12.2005 at Nilamkayam within the limits of the Rajapuram Police Station, Kasaragod, the appellant was found transporting huge quantity of 400 litres of arrack, contained in 4000 packets of 100 ml capacity, and also 90 litres of spirit contained in three plastic cans (30 litres each) in the vehicle No.KL-13N-9340 with a pseudo number KL-14E-8496. The offence was detected by the Sub Inspector of Police, Rajapuram during his usual patrol. When he gave signal to stop the vehicle, the driver sped it away, but the Police party chased it. After running for a distance, the driver stopped the vehicle and took to his heals by abandoning the vehicle containing the huge quantity of spirit and arrack. The person, who ran off and escaped, was identified as the appellant in this case. The huge quantity of arrack and spirit was seized as per a mahazar by the Sub Inspector along with the said vehicle, and a crime was registered against the accused, who ran off and escaped. After investigation, the Sub Inspector submitted final report in court, under Sections 55(a) and 58 of the Act. On committal, the case came up before the Court of Session, from where it was made over to the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) III, Kasaragod for trial and disposal.

(3.) The accused appeared before the trial court and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Sections 55(a) and 58 of the Act. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses in the trial court, and proved Exts.P1 to P13 documents. There was no property to be identified during trial because the properties had been by the time produced before the Assistant Excise Commissioner for necessary action. However, the inventory prepared by the Assistant Commissioner of Excise, certified by the Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction, was proved in evidence. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances and projected a defence that he has nothing to do with the properties seized in this case by the Police, and that he had not transported any quantity of arrack or liquor. The accused did not adduce any evidence in defence.