RAMACHANDRAN K. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who is the sole accused in S.C. No.165 of 2007 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc-II), Kalpetta, challenges conviction and sentence of him under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, 1077 (for short 'the Act'). He was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with a default Simple Imprisonment for one year.

(2.) The appellant was charge sheeted by PW.1, Excise Inspector, Kalpetta Excise Range, in Crime No.30 of 2006 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalpetta. The prosecution allegation is that on 19.07.2006 at 4.30 p.m., PW.1 and the members of his patrolling team found the appellant transporting in his hands three litres of arrack concealed in MO.1 jerry Can of five litres, in Arambattakunnu- Kuzhivayal tarred road about 20 mts away from his unfinished house. It is stated that the Excise party intercepted the accused and after being satisfied that the liquor being transported was arrack, he was immediately arrested at the spot itself in the presence of independent witnesses. 200 ml. sample was collected in a sample bottle of 375 ml. and the MO.1 in and sample bottles were sealed and labelled accordance with law. Later, the accused and the material objects were produced before the court. Investigation was also taken over by PW.1 himself and after completing investigation, he laid the charge sheet before the Committal Court.

(3.) On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, Kalpetta, it was made over to the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc-II), Kalpetta. The accused denied guilt when the charge was framed for an offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Act and stated to him. On the side of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exts.P1 to P7 and MO.1 were admitted in evidence. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned 313 of the Criminal under Section Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.'). He raised a defence that he was not arrested at the spot but was falsely implicated in the present crime. No defence evidence was, however, adduced by him when he was called upon to enter on defence.