Appellants were accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.368/2002 on the file of the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Palakkad. They faced trial for the offence punishable under S.55(a) of the Abkari Act on the allegation that they possessed and transported 44.640 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. To prove the allegation against the appellants, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. MOs.1 and 2 were also marked. After closing the evidence, the appellants were questioned under S.313 Cr.P.C.. They denied the allegation and stated that they were falsely implicated by the excise officials. On the side of the prosecution Exts.D1, D2, D2(a) and D2(b) were marked. Relying on the evidence adduced on both sides, the Trial Court found both the appellants were guilty of the offence punishable under S.55(a) of the Abkari Act and they were convicted there under and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. The judgment of the Trial Court is challenged in this appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the materials placed on records.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has taken the following contentions in challenging the judgment under appeal:- Firstly, it is contended that the Trial Court has committed serious error in accepting the evidence of official witnesses to find the appellants guilty under S.55 (a) of the Abkari Act, as there is no independent witness to support the prosecution case. It is also contended that the findings of the Trial Court that the appellants had committed an offence punishable under S.55(a) of the Abkari Act is not legally sustainable in the light of the principles laid down in two decisions reported in Surendran v. Excise Inspector (2004 (1) KLT 404 Sudhepan v. State of Kerala (2006 (1) KLT SN 52 (C.No.72)). It is further contended that the sentences awarded against the appellants are excessive.

4. PW1, the then Excise Inspector, Palakkad Range, stated that on 24-9-2000 while he was checking vehicles at Karinkarapully Junction, autorickshaw bearing Registration No. KL9-4263 arrived there and on examination 44.640 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor was found kept in five cartons on the seat of the passengers and below the seat. He also stated that the 1st appellant was the driver and the 2nd appellant was the person who was in the passenger seat. He further stated that the appellants were arrested from the spot and contraband articles were seized along with the autorickshaw and the sample was taken for chemical examination. He also stated that the appellants and the articles were taken to the Excise Range Office and registered a case against the appellants. The evidence of PW2, the then Excise Guard attached to Excise Range Office, Palakkad would also show that the 1st appellant was the driver and the 2nd appellant was sitting in the passengers seat with the cases. He identified MOs.1 and 2. Though PWs.3 and 4 were examined to prove the prosecution case, they turned hostile to the prosecution. However, the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 would also show that the 1st appellant was driving the autorickshaw and the 2nd appellant was sitting in the passengers seat with the cartons. Hence, the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is not sustainable.

5. The next question to he considered is whether the finding of the court below that the appellants had committed an offence punishable under S.55(a) of the Abkari Act is sustainable or not? As per the principles laid down by this Court in Surendran's case (supra), the case should fall within the ambit of S.55(a) only when a person was found to be in possession of liquor in the course of import, export, transport or transit of the goods. In Sudhepan's case (Supra) this Court held that under S.55(a) of the Abkari A