VALIYACHALIL GOPALAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is the 1st accused in S.C No.197/2002 of the Court of Session, Kasaragod. He and the 2nd accused faced trial in the court below under Section 55 (a) of the Kerala Abkari Act ("the Act" for short) on the allegation that at about 00.30 hrs on 12.12.2000, at the premises of the Cheruvathur Railway Station, they were found carrying huge quantity of Karnataka arrack contained in 300 packets each. The offence was detected by the Sub Inspector of Police, Chandera on the basis of secret reliable information. The Police version is that on seeing the Police party, the two accused ran off and escaped by abandoning the arrack packets. Though the Police party chased them, they could not be caught. The huge quantity of arrack contained in 600 packets was seized as per a mahazar, and on the basis of the said seizure, a crime was registered against the two accused. The Sub Inspector of Police, Neeleswaram investigated the case and the Sub Inspector of Police, Chandera 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, Kasaragod for trial and disposal.

(2.) The two accused appeared before the trial court and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them. The prosecution examined eight witnesses and proved Exts.P1 to P9 documents in the trial court. The MO1 and MO2 properties were also identified during trial. The arrack packets identified as MO2 series in court are 607 in number, whereas, the prosecution case is that 600 packets of arrack were seized. There is no explanation how 607 packets of arrack were happened to be produced and identified during trial.

(3.) When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, both the accused denied the incriminating circumstances and projected a defence that they had not possessed or carried any quantity or any packet of arrack, and that they have nothing to do with the packets of arrack seized by the Police in this case. The accused did not adduce any evidence in defence.