UNNIKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused in S.C. No.124 of 2006 before the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc-II), Kalpetta is the appellant. He was convicted by impugned judgment dated 29.10.2008 of offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, 1077(for short 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with default sentence of another Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.

(2.) The prosecution case against the appellant is that on 31.10.2004 at 6.15 pm, he was found by Sub Inspector of Police, Mananthavady and his patrolling party to be in possession of 150 packets of Karnataka made arrack of 100 ml. each concealed in MO4 big shopper bag in Mananthavady bus stand. The sub Inspector, who was examined as PW.6 and the accompanying police Head Constable examined as PW.1 found the appellant sitting in a chair in the bus stand in suspicious circumstances. After taking a few packets of arrack from him and making sure that they contained arrack by smell and taste, he was arrested at the spot. Six packets of arrack were taken for sample in two bottles of 375 ml. each. The bottles were thereafter sealed and labelled in accordance with law in the presence of PWs.2 and 5, the independent witnesses present at the time of seizure. The packets containing arrack were then taken to custody under Ext.P2 Seizure Mahazar prepared on the spot itself. The accused and the material objects were then brought to the Station House and investigation of the case was thereafter taken over by PW.4/Additional Sub Inspector of Police, Mananthavady. The accused and material objects were produced before the court and after completing investigation of the crime, PW.4 laid final report before the Committal Court.

(3.) When the case came up on committal before the Court of Sessions, Kalpetta, it was made over for trial to the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc-II), Kalpetta, where charge was framed against the appellant for offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Act. Upon his pleading not guilty, trial commenced and prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and marked Exts.P1 to P7 and also MOs.1 to 4. The defence taken by the accused is one of total denial and he claimed to be innocent. No defence evidence was adduced, despite the fact that he was called upon to enter defence.