LAWS(KER)-2018-10-497

SUBAIDA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On October 22, 2018
SUBAIDA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners herein are wife and husband. They challenge the conviction and sentence against them under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act (the Act) in S.C.No.640/2003 of the Court of Session, Kasaragod. They faced prosecution before the learnes Assistant Sessions Judge, Hosdurg on the allegation that when the police party led by the Sub Inspector of Police, Bekkal conducted a search at their house No.X/659 of the Pallikara Grama Panchayat at about 5.15 a.m. on 21.12.2001, a huge quantity of arrack contained in 1500 packets of 100ml capacity was seen concealed under a cot at the bedroom of the house. The Sub Inspector arrested the accused on the spot, and seized the quantity of arrack as per a search list. On the basis of the arrest and seizure, he registered the present crime, and after investigation, the Additional Sub Inspector submitted final report in court. The two accused appeared before the learned trial Judge, and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them.

(2.) The prosecution examined five witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P10 documents in the trial court. The MO1 series to MO3 series properties were also identified during trial. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances, and maintained a defence that they have nothing to do with the house searched by the police in this case. The accused did not adduce any evidence in defence.

(3.) On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found both the accused guilty. On conviction, they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four years each, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 13.12.2006. the accused approached the Court of Session, Kasaragod with Crl.A.No.430/2006. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Kasaragod confirmed the conviction, but reduced the substantive sentence to simple imprisonment for one year each. Now, the accused are before this Court in revision, challeging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.