ANUKUTTAN @ BHASIKUTTAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence made in S.C.No.146/2005 on the files of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court II, Alappuzha. The conviction is under Section 8(1) and (2) and 55(g) of the Abkari Act.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 13.10.2003 at about 12.30 p.m. on a reliable information Police conducted a search in a leanto attached to the house bearing No.576 in ward No.1 of Pallipad Panchayath and arrested the appellant herein, while he was seen distilling arrack. 3 1/2 litres of arrack was seized as well as utensils for the purpose of distilling were seized. A crime was registered and charge was filed. PWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exts.P1 to P11 were marked. MO1 to MO6 were identified. On the side of the defence, DW1 was examined.

(3.) In this case, Adv.Sri.P.P.Padmalayan was appointed as Amicus Curiae. The learned counsel submitted that here is a case where the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not at all reliable. Even though the prosecution case is that while they were conducting patrol duty and when reached near a temple, they got an information regarding distilling, a bare perusal of the memorandum of search will reveal that even the house number of the building was written. It is an indication that information was given with such minute details. The hand writing in the search memorandum also will not inspire confidence. It was so well written, even though the case of the prosecution is that it was written while they were conducting patrol duty. It is the further submission that as per the evidence, it can be seen that the police station was only 100 metres away from the court. Still the property list reached therein only on 16.10.2013 ie. to cover only 100 metres, the police took about two days. The explanation was that they were busy with other cases also will not inspire confidence.