BHASKARAN, S/O UNNINAGAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Section 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act ("the Act") in S.C. No. 227/2005 of the Court of Session, Manjeri. He faced trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-III), Manjeri on the allegation that at about 4.10 p.m. on 10.12.2003, at Ayrani Harijan Colony, within the Manjeri Excise Circle, he was found possessing one litre of arrack contained in a plastic can of five litres capacity. The offence was detected by the Excise Inspector of Manjeri Excise Range. He arrested the accused, and seized the contraband article as per a mahazar. On the basis of the arrest and seizure, the Excise Inspector registered the crime and occurrence report, and he also produced the accused and properties in court without any delay. The investigation was taken over by the Excise Circle Inspector of the Manjeri Excise Circle, and after investigation the Excise Inspector submitted final report in court.

(2.) The accused appeared before the learned trial judge, and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Sections 8(2) and 55(a) of the Act. The prosecution examined five witnesses and proved Exts. P1 to P9 documents in the trial court. The MO1 property was also identified during trial. The accused did not adduce any evidence in defence. He projected a defence of total denial. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) under Section 8(2) of the Act. No sentence was imposed under Section 55(a) of the Act. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 25.05.2006, the accused has come up in appeal.

(3.) On hearing both sides and on a perusal of the materials, I find no scope for interference in appeal on the findings or the conviction made by the court below under Section 8(2) of the Act. However, though no separate sentence is imposed, the conviction under Section 55(a) of the Act is liable to be set aside because, for a single act of offence, there cannot be conviction under two sections of the Act. Possession of arrack is covered by Section 8(2), and it is punishable under the said Section.