Possession of contraband arrack constitutes an offence under S. 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act, and knowledge of unlawful possession is not required for conviction under this section.

Revision is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Paravur in Crl. A. No. 157 of 1990. The appeal was presented against the conviction and sentence entered by J.F.C.M., Paravur against revision petitioner in C.C. No. 277 of 1988. P.W. 3, the preventive officer attached to the Excise Circle Office, Paravur and P.W. 2, another preventive officer while they were in the course of patrol duty on 9-9-1988 in Kottuvally Village, saw the accused walking along a footpath holding a plastic can. She tried to run away from the place. But she was detained by the officers and the can was checked. The can was found to contain a liquid which on smelling and tasting was ascertained to be contraband arrack. The can was seized and a mahazar was prepared which was attested by P.W. 1. After enquiry, complaint was filed before court under S. 50 of the Kerala Abkari Act alleging commission of offence under S. 55(a) of the Act. Out of the liquid contained in the can, a portion measuring 180 ml. was taken out and sent to the chemical analyst which on analysis was found to contain 35.85% by volume of ethyl alcohol.

2. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. Three witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution and Exts. P1 to P4 were marked. The Magistrate after trial found the accused guilty, convicted her and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence the revision.

3. Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor.

4. The conviction under Section 55(a) of the Act is assailed by counsel on the ground that a person charged under that provision for possession of liquor can be punished only if such possession has been proved to be in the course of transit for export. In support of this contention, counsel relies on the decision of this Court in Rajeevan v. Excise Inspector, (1995) 1 Ker LT 38. This Court held that the accused must be found in possession of liquor in the course of export or import or movement through the State territory to attract Section 55(a) of the Act. On hearing counsel and Public Prosecutor and on a reading of Section 55(a) along with the amendment introduced in 1975, the finding in the aforesaid decision appears to be against the provision contained in the statute as amended in 1975. Such a view is seen to have been taken by interpreting the words shown, within brackets in some of the textbooks. In order to understand the position of law, the clause as it stood before the amendment and after the amendment are to be read and the reasons which led to the amendment are to be correctly understood.

5. Section 55(a) of the Act before the amendment in 1975 reads thus :

"Whoever in contravention of this Act or of any rule or order made under this Act or of any licence or permit obtained under this Act,

(a) imports, exports, transports or possesses liquor or any intoxicating drug; or ......"

6. The word "transits" was introduced in that Clause by Abkari (Amendment) Act, 1975, Act 10 of 1975. The reason for the amendment as mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons is that the Abkari Act did not contain any provision to regulate the movement of liquor or introxicating drugs from one place in a neighbouring State or Union Territory to another place in that State or Union Territory through the territories of the State of Kerala. Such movements of liquor and intoxicating drugs were being done without the knowledge of the Excise Authorities of Kerala. It was therefore not possible to prevent the sale of such goods in this State or other malpractices in the course of such movements. It was therefore considered necessary to make provisions in the Act to regulate such movements of liquor and intoxicating drugs through this State. The Bill in Section 4 reads :

"4. Amendmen