The petitioner is the accused in Calendar Case No.222/1997 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Nadapuram. He was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act and Rule 9 of the Foreign Liquor Rules. The complaint against the petitioner as stated in paragraph 2 of the judgment of the Magistrate is as follows:

"2. x x x x x x x. On 9.4.97 in the morning, the Excise Inspector attached to Nadapuram Excise Range Office and party, while conducting routine patrolling in Iringannor area, at about 9AM, a scooter bearing Reg.No.KRN 4323 was seen riding through Peringathoor-Nadapuram public road. Apprehending, when signalled, it was not stopped, thereby chased and after stopping it when searched, 8.640 litres of Indian made foreign liquor in 48 bottles of 180 ML each was seen hided in the vehicle. These bottles were having no label of the Kerala State Beverages Corporation. Accused was having no licence or permit for the possession or transportation of such a quantity of liquor. Accused was arrested from the spot. Sampling was done, property including the scooter were brought to the Excise Range Office and Cr.No23/97 was registered. The properties including the sample collected from the spot was later produced before the court. After completing the investigation this complaint was filed against the accused alleging offences punishable u/s.55(a) of the Kerala Abkari (amended) Act 1995 and Rule 9 of the Foreign Liquor Rules."

2. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 4 and marked Exhibits P1 to P4 and MO1 series and MO2. The accused did not adduce any evidence. After considering the evidence adduced, the Magistrate convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for another two months. The petitioner filed Crl. Appeal No.566/2000 before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode Division, in which the conviction and sentence were confirmed. The petitioner is challenging the judgments of the courts below.

3. The petitioner raises two contentions. The first is that there is no reliable evidence to prove the prosecution case. According to the petitioner, the only evidence available is the interested testimonies of the excise officers namely PWs 1 & 4. The independent witness for the seizure mahazar did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. That being so, there is no reliable evidence to prove the prosecution case, is the first contention. The 2nd contention is that in this case the ingredients of Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act is not attracted. According to the petitioner, Section 55 (a) is attracted only if there is import of liquor into the State in contravention of the Act and Rules. The petitioner contends that here there is no allegation that the petitioner imported liquor from another State into Kerala State. It is further submitted that the fact that the bottles did not contain the labels of Kerala State Beverages Corporation is no ground to infer commission of offence under Section 55 (a), as laid down by this Court in Narayanan Nair v. State of Kerala [2011 (3) KLT 722]. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the prosecution has not proved any offence punishable under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act and hence the petitioner is entitled to an acquittal in this case.

4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that the ingredients of Section 55 (a) has been alleged and specifically proved in this case. He submits that the total quantity of liquor transported by the petitioner is 8.640 litres. Nobody can transport such quantity of liquor without a valid permit or licence, which is prohibited under the Foreign Liquor Rules and since the petitioner was actually transporting liquor in contravention of the rules, the same constitutes an offence under Section 55 (a). Regarding the other contention, the learned Public Prosecutor would co