In this appeal preferred from the Central Prison, Kannur, the appellant who was the sole accused in S.C. 15/01 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge (Adhoc I), Kalpetta, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Sec. 55 (a) of the Abkari Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 3-5-1999 at 7.10 p.m. the accused was found in possession of 17 packets each containing 100 ml. of Karnataka made arrack at Thazhekattikulam in Thrissileri amsom inside a stage carriage bus bearing registration No. KLZ -8285 by name N.B.S. plying between Bavali and Mananthavady and the accused has thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 55(a) of the Abkari Act.

3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the court below for an offence punishable under Sec. 55(a) of the Abkari Act, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 9 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 9 and got marked documents as Exts. P1 to P8 2 material objects marked as MO1 and MO2 series.

4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Sec. 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the prosecution. He denied those circumstances and maintained his innocence. He had the following to submit before Court:-

He was slightly drunk when he got down from the bus at Kattikkulam and was proceeding to his daughter's house. While so, the police men came and forcibly took him in their Jeep. His family was informed about his arrest only after 16 hours. He is a patient of psoriasis for the last 12 years. He is innocent.

5. Since the Court below did not consider this a fit case for recording an order of acquittal under Sec. 232 Cr.P.C. the accused was called upon to enter on his defence and to adduce any evidence which he might have in support thereof. He did not adduce any defence evidence.

6. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, after trial, as per judgment dated 20-9-2006 found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Sec. 55(a) of the Abkari Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months more. He was also allowed set off under Sec. 428 Cr.P.C. It is the said judgment which is assailed in this appeal.

7. I heard Advocate Sri. K.K. Rajeev, the learned counsel who defended the appellant on State Brief and Advocate Sri. K. S. Sivakumar, the learned Public Prosecutor who defended the State.

8. The only point which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the appellant are sustainable or not?

THE POINT:-

9. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the independent witnesses to Ext.P1 scene mahazar. Eventhough both of them admitted their signatures in Ext.P1, they turned hostile to the prosecution. P.W.3 is the Sub Inspector of Police, Tirunelli who laid the charge. Ext.P2 certificate of Chemical Analysis was marked through him. P.W.4 is the cleaner of the bus from which the accused was arrested and the packets of contraband liquor were seized. He also did not support the prosecution. P.W.5 is the Addl. Sub Inspector of Tirunelli who detected the offence. P.W.6 is the headconstable who had accompanied P.W.5. P.W.7 is another headconstable who in his capacity as the Station House Officer registered Ext.P6 F.I.R. P.W.8 is the subsequent S.H.O. Tirunelli who produced the MOs as per Ext.P7 property list. P.W.9 is the Sub Inspector, Tirunelli, who conducted the investigation. Ext.P8 forwarding note was filed by him during the course of the investigation.

10. Advocate Sri. K.K. Rajeev made the following submissions before me in support of his fervent plea for acquittal of the accused:-

Eventhough the packets of contraband liquor were allegedly seized on 3-5-1999, they w