1. The appellant, who is a lady and who faced prosecution in S.C.No.100 of 2000 of the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc-II), Alappuzha, preferred this appeal as she is aggrieved by the judgment dated 30/10/2003 in the above Sessions Case by which she is convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act.

2. The prosecution case is that the accused was found carrying 2 = litres of arrack in a white plastic bottle on 01/11/1997 at 12.15 P.M. through KTP canal road near Ambetkar colony against the provisions of Abkari Act and thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 8(1) & (2) and 55 (a) of the Abkari Act. On the above allegation, Crime No.131 of 1997 was registered in the Excise Range, Mavelikkara and on completing the investigation a report was filed, based upon, which eventually S.C.No.100 of 2000 was instituted in the Sessions Court, from where the case was made over to the present trial court for disposal. When the accused appeared, after hearing the prosecution and the defence, a formal charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and when the said charge was read over and explained to the accused, she denied the same and pleaded not guilty. Consequently, the prosecution adduced its evidence by examining PWs.1 to 5 and producing Exts.P1 to P3 documents. MO.1 is also identified as material objects. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Judge found that the prosecution has succeeded to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was arrested by PWs.1 and 2 along with MO.1 plastic can containing arrack against the provisions of the Act and thus the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act and accordingly she is convicted thereunder. On such conviction the appellant/ accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rupees One lakh and in default of payment of fine she is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Set off is allowed under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C.

3. Heard Sri.R.Gopan, the learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Laliza, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

4. PW.1 is the then Preventive Officer attached to Excise Range, Mavelikara who detected the crime and PW.5 was then working as Excise Guard attached to the same Range, who accompanied PW.1 at the time of the detection of the crime. To prove the detection of the crime, seizure of the contraband article and arrest of the accused besides PWs.1 and 5, the prosecution has also examined PWs.2 and 3, who are independent witnesses, but they turned hostile. Thus, when PWs.1 and 5 were examined they have deposed in terms of the prosecution allegation and according to these witnesses on 01/11/1997 while they were on patrol duty and when reached the road near Ambetkar colony, they found the accused coming from their opposite side with a plastic can having the capacity of 10 litres and on entertaining doubt the accused was intercepted and the plastic can was inspected and found the same contained liquid, which on tasting and smelling was realised as arrack. Thus, according to PWs.1 and 5, the accused was arrested and the contraband articles were seized and the sample drawn from the contraband article. According to PWs.1 and 5, the entire proceedings are recorded in a timely prepared mahazar and on completing the proceedings they returned to the Excise Range Office. Thus, when PW.1 is examined, he had identified the mahazar prepared by him as Ext.P1. PW.5 has also identified the material objects.

5. As per the evidence of PWs.1 and 5 the contraband article and the accused were entrusted with the Mavelikkara Excise Range Office and consequently a crime was registered and the accused as well as the contraband articles and the samples were produced before the court. PW.4 is the officer who investigated the crime and when