K. RAGHAVAN @ RAGHU S/O. KORAGA VELICHAPPATA, KATAMANA VEEDU Vs. THE S.H.O. BADIADKA POLICE STATION, IN CRIME NO. 279/2002 AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction in SC 568/2004 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Kasaragod. Conviction was under Sections 55 (a) and (g) of the Abkari Act and sentence was to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment as well as to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- under each head.

(2.) When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Adv. Ajivas submitted before this court that here is a case where the prosecution failed to prove the charge framed by the court against the appellant by cogent and reliable evidence. Both the eye witnesses were not supported the prosecution case. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that here is an offence under the Abkari Act. The seized contraband should have been produced before the court forthwith. Even though the alleged seizure was on 23.10.2002, admittedly, a partial property list was produced before the court on 25.10.2002, which was returned from the court and again produced it only on 29.10.2002. Thus, there is an inordinate delay to comply with the mandate of the statute. As per the prosecution case, seizure was made from the house owned by accused No. 2, who was acquitted in the case. Mere presence cannot be equated with the possession, when accused No. 2 who was the owner of the house was also prosecuted. At the time of search, the appellant was not therein. Thereafter, he was falsely implicated to save the accused No. 2.

(3.) I heard the learned Public Prosecutor.