1. Is it not a reality that the accused persons involved in Abkari cases are being dealt with harshly when compared to most of the accused persons involved in offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act'), even when it is permissible to consume liquor containing Ethyl alcohol, whereas, consumption of various contraband under the NDPS Act is totally prohibited? Is it not merely aiming at the collection of revenue rather than aiming at the protection of the health and social security of the citizens?

2. Accused in S.C.No.381/2001 of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-II), Thodupuzha, who stands convicted under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of 1 lakh, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two more months, has come up in appeal.

3. The prosecution case is that, on 30.12.1999 at 3.30 p.m., while PW3, Excise Inspector of Udumbanchola, and party were on patrol duty, they could see the appellant coming with a can containing something. He was intercepted and the can was examined. On examination, the can was found containing 2= litres of arrack. A sample was drawn and the appellant was placed under arrest. The contraband was seized through Ext.P1 mahazar. PW 3 registered C.R.No.63/99 of Udumbanchola Excise Range through Ext.P6 occurrence report. On the same day, the accused was produced before the learned Magistrate along with Ext.P1 mahazar, Ext.P4 arrest memo, Ext.P5 arrest notice and Ext.P6 occurrence report. He conducted the investigation and filed the final report on obtaining Ext.P9 certificate of chemical analysis.

4. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exts.P1 to P10 were marked. MO1 was identified. No defence evidence was adduced. The court below found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him as aforesaid.

5. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has mainly argued that the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, being a sessions offence, requires stringent proof, that there was inordinate delay in the production of the sample and the contraband before court, that the contraband should have been produced before court with a requisition for drawing the sample and for forwarding it to the laboratory for chemical analysis and that, there is no independent corroboration of the evidence of PW 3 so as to sustain a conviction. In the light of the aforesaid argument, the learned senior counsel for the appellant has guided me through the evidence of PWs 3 and 4.

6. Regarding the first point, it is true that the punishment being a harsher one in an offence like the present one, it requires stringent proof; but through precedents, the stringency has been watered down considerably. Usually, in all the abkari cases, it may not be possible to obtain independent witnesses. If at all some independent witnesses are cited, usually, they used to turn hostile to the prosecution, when the matter comes up for evidence in trial. In the case of the NDPS Act, as rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, there are stringent provisions for avoiding manipulations at the time of search, seizure, etc. There is added safeguard of Section 50 in the NDPS Act, unlike in the case of Abkari Act. Apart from that, as rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, even in a case under the NDPS Act, the offences are graded as one relating to small quantity, one relating to intermediate quantity and the one relating to commercial quantity, based on the quantity of the contraband involved. It has been pointed out that in the case of Ganja, which is cannabis, a quantity above 1Kg. up to 20 Kg. has to be treated as intermedia