C.V.RAMESH BABU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein is the 1st accused in C.C No.812/1997 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- IV, Kozhikode. He faced prosecution in the court below under Section 55(a)of the Kerala Abkari Act on the allegation that at about 7.55 p.m on 2.10.1996, he was found transporting a huge quantity of Indian made Foreign Liquor brought from Mahi contained in 960 bottles of 375 ml capacity, in his Lorry No.KL-13A 6278, with the the 2nd accused as the Cleaner. The offence was detected by an Excise Inspector of the Kozhikode Excise Control Room at Puthiyangadi. The Excise Inspector intercepted the vehicle on the basis of secret reliable information, and when he inspected the plat form of the lorry, he found 40 cases of IMFL; each case containing 24 bottles. He seized the contraband articles including the vehicle as per a mahazar and arrested the driver and the cleaner of the lorry. The crime was initially registered at the Excise Control Room, Kozhikode and it was without delay, re-registered at the concerned Excise Range. The Excise Inspector, who detected the offence, is in fact, the Inspector of the concerned Range, though he was on duty at the control room at that time. He took over investigation and submitted final report in court against the two accused.

(2.) The 2nd accused absconded during the proceedings, and so the 1st accused faced trial before the court below. He entered appearance and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court. What is alleged in the prosecution records is unauthorised and illegal possession of huge quantity of IMFL in the process of transit, amounting to illegal import from the State of Pondicherry. The prosecution examined three witnesses and proved Exts.P1 to P5 documents. The MO1 and MO2 properties were also identified during trial. The vehicle of the accused had been by the time produced before the Assistant Excise Commissioner for confiscation proceedings. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C,, 1973 the accused denied the incriminating circumstances. He did not adduce any evidence in defence.

(3.) On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of 25,000/-. Aggrieved ? by the judgment of conviction dated 23.5.2002, the 1st accused approached the Court of Session, Kozhikode with Crl.A No.264/2000. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction, but modified and reduced the sentence. Accordingly, the jail sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months, but the fine sentence was maintained.