GOPI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Section 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act (for short 'the Act') in SC No. 531 of 2009 of the Court of Sessions, Thrissur. He faced trial before the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur on the allegation that at about 6.00 pm on 23.01.2007 at Anthikad, he was found possessing 3.5 Ltrs. of illicit Indian Made Foreign Liquor, contained in four bottles. The offence was detected by the Excise Inspector of Anthikad Excise Range. He arrested the accused on the spot and seized the contraband articles as per a Mahazar. On the basis of the arrest and seizure, the Excise Inspector registered the Crime and occurrence report. Another Excise Inspector conducted investigation and also submitted final report in Court.

(2.) The accused appeared before the learned trial Judge and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him. The prosecution examined five witness and proved exhibits P1 to P10 documents before the trial court. The MO1 to MO4 properties were also identified. The accused did not adduce any evidence in defence. He projected a defence that this is a false case foisted against him. On an appreciation of the evidence the trial court found the accused guilty under Section 58 of the Act. The final report was filed under Section 55(a)(i) of the Act also. On conviction he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 21.05.2014, the accused has come up in appeal.

(3.) On hearing both sides and on a perusal of the materials I find that there is evidence on factual aspects as regards the arrest of the accused and the seizure of four bottles from his possession. The crucial question is whether the liquid in the bottles was identified as illicit liquor as the prosecution would allege. Of the five witnesses examined in the trial Court PW1 is the Excise Inspector who detected the offence and registered the Crime, and PW4 is the Excise Inspector, who investigated the case and submitted final report. PW2 and PW3 examined as independent witnesses turned hostile. PW5 is the Village Officer, who prepared the Ext. P10 sketch of the scene of incident. The main evidence is that of PW1.