P.S. Gopinathan, J.

1. The Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc -II), Alappuzha in Sessions Case No.124/2001, by judgment dated 30.1.2004 convicted the appellant for offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. One lakh with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months. In the preface of the impugned judgment, section of offence is misquoted as 55(i). Assailing the above conviction and sentence, this appeal is preferred.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 7.12.1998 at 8.30 p.m., while PW4, a Preventive Officer attached to the Chengannur Excise Range, moving on patrol duty along with PW5, a Guard and others, found the appellant coming across with a plastic bottle which was marked as MO1. Suspecting that the bottle contained some contraband liquid the appellant was intercepted and the contents in MO1 was tested by smell and taste. It was convinced that MO1 having a capacity of 1? litres contained full of illicit arrack. The appellant was arrested and MO1 was seized for which Ext.P3 seizure mahazar, wherein PWs 2 and 3 are attestors, was prepared. 180ml was taken as sample in three bottles. MO1 was sealed with balance quantity of the liquor. Sample bottles were also sealed. The appellant was taken to the office and produced before PW1, the then Excise Inspector. PW1 produced the appellant along with material objects and sample bottles before the local Magistrate. PW1 was succeeded by PW6, who completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class-II, Chengannur alleging offences under Sections 55(a) and 55(i) of the Abkari Act.

3. On finding that the offences alleged are exclusively triable by a court of session, the case was committed to the court of Session, Alappuzha, fromwhere it was made over to the Additional Sessions Judge. The appellant, who was arrested on the spot was later released on bail. Responding to the process issued by the Additional Sessions Judge, the appellant entered appearance. After hearing either side, a charge for offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act was framed. When read and explained, the appellant pleaded not guilty. Therefore, he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 6 were examined. Exts.P1 to P3 and MOs 1 to 3 were marked. After closing the evidence for the prosecution, the appellant was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Appellant took a defence of total denial. No defence evidence was let in. On appraisal of the evidence, the additional Sessions Judge arrived at a conclusion of guilt. Consequently, the appellant was convicted and sentenced, assailing which, this appeal is preferred.

4. I have heard Adv.Sri.P.A.Salim, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.Reji Joseph, the learned Government Pleader. Perused the judgment impugned and the evidence on record.

5. PWs 4 and 5 had given corroborating evidence. They would depose that, on 7.12.1998, while they were moving on patrol duty along the road in front of the house of one Asok Kumar, the appellant was found coming across with MO1 plastic bottle in his hand. Having got suspected, the appellant was intercepted and the contents in MO1 was tested by smell and taste, whereupon it was convinced that MO1 contained one and a half litres of arrack. The appellant was arrested. MO1 with the arrack was seized for which Ext.P3 seizure mahazar was prepared. Sample was taken in three bottles of 180ml capacity. One bottle was sent for analysis. MOs 2 and 3 were identified as the other two parts of the sample. They would further depose that the appellant along with the material objects were produced before PW1, the Excise Inspector. PW1, the Excise Inspector, would depose that the appellant along with the material objects were produced before him. He, in turn produced the appellant as well as the material objects before the the local Magistrate, fromw