LAWS(KER)-2017-2-106

AITHAPPA NAIK Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On February 23, 2017
Aithappa Naik Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Sec. 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act (the Act) in S.C.No.411/2011 of the Court of Session, Kasaragod.

(2.) The prosecution case is that at about 6.00 p.m. on 112007 at Maniyampara on Perla-Kumbla public road (Kasaragod district), the appellant was found possessing 8 litres of Karnataka arrack. The offence was detected by the Circle Inspector of Excise, Badiadka during his routine patrol duty. The accused was arrested on the spot, and the quantity of arrack was seized as per mahazar. The accused and the properties were produced at the Excise Range Office, Badiadka, where an Excise Inspector registered crime and occurrence report. He also produced the accused and the properties in Court. Another Excise Inspector conducted investigation, and submitted final report in the Court of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kasaragod under Sec. 55(a) of the Act. After complying with the procedure prescribed under the law, the learned Magistrate committed the case to 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 Sec. 58 of the Act. The prosecution examined five witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P10 documents. When examined under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C., the accused denied the incriminating circumstances, and projected a defence of total denial. In spite of opportunities granted by the trial court, the accused did not adduce any evidence in defence. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty, and convicted him under Sec. 55(a) of the Act. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000.00 (Rupees one lakh only) by judgment dated 007.2012. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the accused has come up in appeal.