1. The revision petitioner is the accused in Sessions Case No.584 of 2003 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Hosdurg. He was found guilty, after trial by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, for offence under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act. He was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rupees one lakh with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. In Criminal Appeal No.170 of 2006, the conviction was confirmed. But the substantive sentence was reduced to simple imprisonment for three months. Default sentence was also reduced to one month.

2. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed and modified in appeal, this revision petition was preferred.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 25/4/2001, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Chittarikal Police Station along with Head Constable and Police Constable, who were examined as PWs.1 and 2 were moving on patrol duty. At 9.45 a.m., when they reached near the bus stand complex at Chittarikkal, the revision petitioner was found carrying a bag at his head and a big shopper in his hand. Feeling suspicious, the revision petitioner was intercepted and interrogated. The revision petitioner confessed that the bag and big shopper contained packets of arrack. On examination, the bag contained 150 packets of arrack, each containing 100 ml. of arrack. The big shopper contained 200 packets, each containing 100 ml. of arrack. The revision petitioner was arrested then and there for which Ext.P1 arrest memo was prepared. The contraband along with container was seized. Four packets each from the bag and big shopper were opened and took as samples in bottles, which were sealed then and there. The remaining packets were taken custody as such. Ext.P2 seizure mahazar was prepared. Returning to the Police Station, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police registered a case as Crime No.51 of 2001. The investigation was taken over by PW6, the then Sub Inspector of Police. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was laid before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Hosdurg. On finding that the offence alleged is triable by a Court of Session, after complying with the requisite procedures, committed the case to the court of Session, Kasargod. From there it was made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Hosdurg. The learned Assistant Judge, after hearing the prosecution and the revision petitioner, a charge for offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act was framed. When it was read over and explained the revision petitioner pleaded not guilty. Hence, he was sent for trial.

4. On the side of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 6 were examined. Exts.P1 to P8 and MOs.1 to 5 series were marked. When questioned under Section 313 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, the revision petitioner denied the incriminating evidence and further stated that he had no connection with the material objects involved, and that while he was travelling in the bus, he was arrested and the case was falsely registered against him. Though revision petitioner was called upon to enter his evidence, no defence evidence was let in. The Assistant Sessions Judge, on appraisal of the evidence, arrived a conclusion of guilt, as mentioned earlier.

5. The Assistant Sub Inspector of Police who detected the crime is no more. So he could not be examined. PW.1, the Head Constable and PW.2, the Police Constable who were accompanying the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police were examined. PWs.1 and 2 had given supporting evidence. Pw1 had also deposed that at that time the Asst. Sub Inspector was the Station House Officer. Though they were subjected to searching cross- examination, no material was disclosed to disbelieve the arrest and seizure deposed by them. Ext.P2 would support the evidence of PWs.1 and 2.

6. PW.3 was examined as a witness to the arrest and seizure. Though he admitted the signature contained in Ext.P