1. The Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.383/1997 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kunnamkulam, as well as the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.152/2000 on the files of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc II), Kozhikode. He was charge sheeted and prosecuted for the offence punishable u/s 55(a) of the Abkari Act. After trial, the Revision petitioner was found guilty of the offence punishable u/s 55(a) of the Abkari Act and convicted thereunder. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, though he had preferred an appeal, the appellate court also confirmed the conviction entered and sentence imposed by the trial court as such. This revision is filed challenging the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence, on various grounds.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24/05/1997 at 5.30 p.m. when the Preventive Officer attached to Chelannur Range and party were on patrol duty through Kunnamangalam-Peruvattiparamala public road, they saw the accused coming with a black plastic can through the eastern side of the said road. On seeing the excise party, the accused tried to hide the plastic can. On examining the contents of the plastic can, it was found containing about 2 litres of illicit arrack. The accused was arrested from the place of occurrence. Thus, the accused had committed the offence punishable u/s 55(a) of the Abkari Act.

1. The learned counsel for the Revision petitioner canvassed two points in his arguments. The counsel firstly pointed out that the 'arrest memo' had not been prepared or produced so as to prove the alleged arrest of the Revision petitioner with contraband as alleged by the prosecution. Similarly, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 regarding the place of arrest is contradictory and the same is mutually destructive. Therefore, the arrest itself is suspicious and unbelievable as it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the arrest with contraband is proved by Exts.P1 to P3, which were prepared contemporaneously at the time of arrest. Therefore, absence of arrest memo is not fatal to the prosecution case. Secondly, there is a delay of one day in producing the contraband articles seized before the Magistrate court, and that delay is also fatal. These are the two points urged before me in this revision.

3. Going by the records, it could be seen that PWs.1 to 4, 6 and 7 are the occurrence witnesses. PW1 is the Preventive Officer who detected the incident of this case. He deposed that no particular information was obtained at the time of detection. His evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW7 and PW 2 who accompanied PW1 at the time of patrol duty and the detection of the offence. Ext.P4 is the chemical analysis report which shows that the contraband seized from the Revision petitioner contains ethyl alcohol. Thus, the seizure of the arrack is seen, beyond reasonable doubt.

4. Coming to the points raised by the Revision petitioner, the learned counsel strongly contended that the place of arrest is contradictory and mutually destructive. Going by the deposition of PW 1, it could be seen that PW1 testified that the Revision petitioner was arrested when he was standing on the eastern side of the mud road and that the mud road was lying on the left side of the tar road. While going through the deposition of PW 2, he deposed that the Revision petitioner was arrested when he was standing in the northern side of the road which leads to a place known as "Peruvattippara" and that place was far away from the tar road. Thus, it is seen that the place of arrest deposed by PWs.1 and 2 is distinct and different.

5. It is pertinent to note that the 'arrest memo', a crucial document which is