The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, including compliance with procedural requirements, and the significance of corroborative evidence in establishing the essential elements of the offence.

Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "Cr.P.C.").

2. Accused who stood a trial for an offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act (for short, "Act") in S.C.No.345 of 2004 before the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track - I, Palakkad is the appellant. He was convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of `1,00,000/-.

3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that at about 6.30 p.m. on 18.06.2000, the appellant/accused was found possessing five litres of arrack at the place of occurrence and he was apprehended with the contraband. The offence was detected by the Circle Inspector of Police. After completing the formalities, a crime was registered and he was produced before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittur.

4. Evidence in the case consists of testimony of PWs 1 to 6 and Exts.P1 to P7 on the side of prosecution. No material objects were marked in this case. No defence evidence was adduced.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. Learned Additional Sessions Judge mainly relied on the testimony of PWs 1 and 2 to find the guilt of the accused. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also based his reasoning to convict the accused that uncorroborated testimony of Police Officials alone is sufficient to convict an accused, if the testimony is found to be trustworthy and credible. Certain decisions on the point were also relied on. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the conviction of the appellant for the offence is legally unjustifiable. According to him, there is no material to establish that the appellant was in possession of the contraband at the material time. I have gone through the testimony of PWs 1 and 2. PW1 was a Sub Inspector who got information about sale of illicit arrack and proceeded to the place of occurrence. He would depose that the accused was found standing on a mud road by the side of a paddy field. A can of 10 litres was found in a nearby place. The detection was at about 6.30 p.m. A glass was also seen there. The accused was apprehended from the place and articles were seized. Ext.P1 mahazar was prepared from the place of occurrence. PW2 also was there with the Police Party at the time of detection. These two witnesses were subjected to cross examination. PW1, at the time of cross examination, deposed that in addition to Police Officers and witnesses, other persons were also present at the place of occurrence. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Section 36 of the Act insists the presence of witnesses other than Officers of Abkari, Excise, Police or Village Office. Section 36 of the Act reads as follows:

"Searches how to be made:- All searches under the provisions of this Act shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974)

Provided that the persons called upon to attend and witness such searches shall include at least two persons neither of whom is an Abkari, Police or Village Officer.

Ext.P1 mahazar shows that two witnesses have signed on it. First witness is PW3. He turned hostile to prosecution. Second witness in Ext.P1 is a Police Constable.

Learned counsel contended that there is a clear violation of the provisions in Section 36 of the Act as neither of the witnesses shall be an Officer in the Abkari or Police Department. In this case, out of two witnesses, one is a Police Officer. A decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Rajamani v. State of Kerala (2012 (2) KLD 201) would show that absence of independent witnesses to the seizure mahazar will not vitiate the trial if materials brought on record justify conviction. Even if this cannot be taken as a fatal aspect to discard the prosecution case, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the recitals in Ext.P1 coupled with the testimony of PWs 1 and 2 will not make out an offence unde