LAWS(KER)-2019-11-363

K.VELAYUDHAN Vs. EXCISE INSPECTOR

Decided On November 19, 2019
K.VELAYUDHAN Appellant
V/S
EXCISE INSPECTOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.49/2003 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)-III, Kasaragode, who was found guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, convicted thereunder, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, with the default sentence of six months simple imprisonment.

(2.) The facts in brief are thus: On 27.12.2001 at about 5.30 p.m. PW1, the Preventive Officer attached to the Kasaragode Excise Range, together with PW2, an Excise Guard, while on patrol duty, saw the accused coming with MO1 plastic bag in his hand along the Cherkala-Bovikanam old road. On getting suspicious, they intercepted him in the presence of PW3 and PW4, independent witnesses. Inspection of the bag revealed 49 packets of Karnataka made arrack containing 100 ml. each. The accused was arrested vide Ext.P1 arrest memo and Ext.P2 intimation. 290 ml. arrack was collected from out of three packets in a 375 ml. bottle as sample, sealed and labelled and Ext.P3 seizure mahazar prepared in the presence of independent witnesses. The specimen seal that was impressed on the sample was taken on Ext.P4. The accused along with the contraband was thereafter produced before the Excise Office and PW5, the Assistant Excise Inspector registered Ext.P5 crime and occurrence report. PW5 produced the contraband along with the sample before the jurisdictional Magistrate accompanied by Ext.P6 property list and Ext.P7 forwarding note was submitted with a request to send the sample for chemical examination. Ext.P8 is the chemical analysis report, which confirms that the sample contained ethyl alcohol. PW6, the Excise Inspector of Kasaragode Excise Range completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet. On the basis of the evidence adduced, the accused was found guilty and convicted as stated above and hence this appeal.

(3.) Heard Shri T.G.Rajendran, the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Records perused.