BIJU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, in these two appeals, challenge the conviction and sentence against them under Section 55 (a) and (i) of the Kerala Abkari Act ('the Act" for short) in S.C No.540 of 2010 of the Court of Session, Kollam. These two appellants and another person by name Shahan (A3) faced prosecution before the trial court on the allegation that at about 4 p.m on 28.12.2009, they were found transporting a huge quantity of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in the Jeep No.KL7-P2329 driven by the 1st accused (appellant in Crl.A No.1519/2012). The offence was detected by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thenmala. On suspicion, the Sub Inspector intercepted the jeep. The jeep was immediately stopped, and just then, a passenger seen on the front seat of the vehicle ran off and escaped. When the Sub Inspector inspected the vehicle, he found a passenger on the rear seat of the jeep holding a big shopper containing something. Another big shopper was seen on the front seat also. When he opened and examined the two big shoppers, he found liquor bottles therein. The big shopper on the front seat was found containing 46 liquor bottles of 375 ml capacity, and the big shopper in the possession of the passenger on the rear seat was found containing 12 bottles of 500ml capacity; all bottles containing full quantity of Indian made Foreign Liquor, and all the bottles bearing the seal of the Kerala State Beverages Corporation. The driver of the jeep and also the passenger on the rear seat were arrested by the Sub Inspector, and the liquor bottles were seized as per mahazar. On the basis of the seizure, the Sub Inspector registered the crime against three persons under Section 55 (a) and (i) of the Act. After investigation, the Police submitted final report in court against three persons. The first accused is the driver of the vehicle, the 2nd accused is the passenger seen on the rear seat, and the 3rd accused is the passenger on the front seat, who ran off and escaped.

(2.) The three accused entered appearance before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) I, Kollam and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them under Section 55 (i) of the Act. The prosecution examined five witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P16 documents. Of the five witnesses, PW1 and 2 are the independent witnesses examined by the prosecutor, PW3 is the Head Constable who had accompanied the Sub Inspector, PW4 is the Sub Inspector who detected the offence, registered the crime and investigated the case, and PW5 is the Sub Inspector who submitted final report .

(3.) When the case came up for examination of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C, the 3rd accused remained absent consistently, and at that stage, the case against him was split up and the case proceeded against the accused Nos.1 and 2. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused Nos.1 and 2 denied the incriminating circumstances. They did not adduce any evidence in defence.