P. UBAID, J.

1. The two accused in S.C. No. 113 of 2011 of the Court of Session, Ernakulam, are the appellants in these two appeals. They challenge the conviction and sentence against them under Section 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2. The two accused faced prosecution before the court below on the allegation that at about 10.00 p.m. on 02.10.2008 at Kothamangalam, within the Kothamangalam Excise Range, they were found in possession of 18.375 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, contained in 49 bottles of 375 ml capacity, for the purpose of illicit sale. The offence was detected by a Circle Inspector of the Excise Enforcement and Anti-narcotic Special Squad, Ernakulam, as part of a joint drive made by the said squad, and also the Excise Officials of the Kothamangalam Excise Circle and the Excise Range, for detecting offences under the Kerala Abkari Act within the range. The two accused were arrested by the Circle Inspector of the said Squad, and the quantity of liquor seized from their possession was seized as by him as per a mahazar. After complying with the procedural formalities as regards sampling etc., the accused and the properties were produced at the Excise Range Office, Kothamangalam, where an Excise Inspector of the Range registered the crime and occurrence report. Investigation was later taken over by an Excise Circle Inspector of the North Paravur Excise Circle, and after investigation, he submitted final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kothamangalam.

3. After complying with the procedure prescribed under the law, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session, Ernakulam, from where it was made over to the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam, for trial and disposal.

4. The two accused appeared before the trial court, and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them under Sections 55(a) & 55(i) of the Act, and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 5 witnesses, including the detecting officer, and proved Exts.P1 to P10 documents. The MO1 to MO6 properties were also identified during trial.

5. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the two accused denied the incriminating circumstances, and projected a defence of total denial. The accused examined a witness on their side as DW1 in defence.

6. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the two accused not guilty under Section 55(a) of the Act, and accordingly, they were acquitted of the said offence. However, the two accused were found guilty under Section 55(i) of the Act. On conviction there under, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh each, by judgment dated 31.8.2011. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the two accused have come up in appeal.

7. Crl. A. No. 1727 of 2011 is the appeal brought by the first accused, and Crl. A. No. 1875 of 2011 is the appeal brought by the second accused.

8. When the two appeals came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the factual aspects as regards detection and arrest in this case need not be probed into, because the appellants are entitled for acquittal on the ground of very serious illegalities and infirmities in the process of detection, and the process of investigation. The defence is that the detection in this case was made by an incompetent Excise Official, and investigation was also done by another incompetent Excise Official. Now let me see whether the prosecution case is vitiated by illegalities or infirmities as the defence would contend.

9. Of the 5 witnesses examined in the trial court, PW2 is the Circle Inspector of the Excise Enforcement and Anti-narcotic Special Squad, who detected the offence, PW5 is the Excise Inspector of the Kothamangalam Excise Range who registered the Ext.P8 crime and occurrence report, and PW4 is the Circle Inspector of Excise, North Paravur who conduc