The judgment established the principle that the court can rely on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness if found reliable, and clarified the distinction between possession of 'liquor' and 'wash fit for distillation' under S.55(g) of the Abkari Act.

1. State has come up in appeal challenging an order of acquittal in a case under the Abkari Act (Act I of 1077), hereinafter called the Act. The accused, the respondent herein, was convicted by the judicial Magistrate of I.Class Ponnani, for an offence punishable under S.55(g) of the Act for having possessed fermented wash and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. On appeal, the Court of Session, Manjeri, acquitted him.

2. The case against the accused was that on October, 25,1976 at about 5 p. m., while pw.1, Excise Inspector, and his party including pw. 2, Preventive Officer, were moving round on patrol duty, they found the accused stirring wash kept in a tin at the foot of a palmyra tree at the south-western corner of Manakattu paramba belonging to one Vasudevan. pws.1 and 2 along with the party rushed upto the place, detained the accused and on examining the place found there a tin containing about 18 litres and a plastic container containing 20 litres of fermented wash fit for illicit distillation. The accused was arrested and the contraband articles were seized, and a mahazar (Ex. P2) was prepared in the presence of two. independent witnesses, pws 3 and 4. A sample of the wash kept in the containers was taken and sent to the Chemical Examiner. As per Ex. P1, report of the Chemical Examiner the sample contained 10.69% by volume of ethyl alcohol.

3. The plea of the accused was one of complete denial. He had no witness to be examined on his side.

4. The trial court found that the evidence of pws.1 and 2 was reliable and safe to be acted upon. But it was on the ground that their evidence cannot be considered as "disinterested" and that "when the persons whose signatures obtained in the mahazar had turned hostile", it is difficult to find that "the accused was arrested with liquor in his possession" and that the evidence adduced does not show that the accused was "in possession of any of the materials, referred to in S.55 (g) of the Act that the Appellate Court acquitted the accused". Both these grounds are filmsy and unsustainable in law and on the facts. The very approach made by the appellate court to the material point involved in the case is wrong and this has seriously vitiated the appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence in the case. The following is the point formulated in Para.9 of the judgment: "the short question for consideration is whether the evidence is sufficient to hold that the accused was in possession of liquor." The learned Sessions Judge is labouring under a serious mistake that what is punishable under S.55 (g) of the Act is possession of 'liquor'.

5. The appellate court grievously erred in holding that what the prosecution has to prove in a case under S.55 (g) of the Act is that the accused is in possession of 'liquor'. 'Liquor' has been defined under the Act. Possession of liquor in violation of the provisions of the Act is an offence punishable under S.55 (a) of the Act. What is punishable under S.55 (g) of the Act is using, keeping or having possession of any materials, still, utensil, implement or apparatus, for the purpose of manufacturing liquor. The charge against the accused was that he was found in possession of wash fit for distillation of illicit arrack and not that he was found in possession of liquor. Offences punishable under S.55 (a) and 55 (g) of the Act are different and distinct. Wash is not liquor but is only a material fit for the purpose of distillation of arrack. The prosecution demands a conviction relying on the direct testimony of pws.1 and 2 and Ex. P1 to P3.

6. It was argued on behalf of the accused that pws.1 and 2 being Excise Officers stand on the same footing as Police Officers; that their evidence is highly interested and therefore a conviction based on their testimony uncorroborated by independent evidence will be illegal and unsustainable.