M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.

1. The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 15,000/- for the offence under Section 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-11, Thamarassery, in CC No. 203/97. The prosecution case was that the accused was in possession of 5 litres of illicit arrack in a plastic can. Though the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, confirming the conviction and sentence, it was dismissed. The revision petition is filed, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence. The learned Single Judge referred the Criminal Revision Petition to the Division Bench for a decision on the following questions:

"a) Does Rajeevan v. Excise Inspector 1995 K.H.C. 10: 1995 (1) KLT 38 or Purushan v. State of Kerala 2002 KHC 492: 2002 (2) KLT 661: ILR 2002 (3) Ker. 315: 2002 CriLJ 3523 lay down the law correctly?

b) Cannot Section 58 apply to the transporter in possession with requisite culpable knowledge or is that section applicable only to persons who subsequently came into possession?"

According to the learned Single Judge, there is conflict of views in the decisions in Rajeevan (supra) and Purushan (supra) and though a Division Bench of this Court in Surendran v. Excise Inspector 2004 KHC 72: 2004 (1) KLT 404, affirmed both the decisions, the apparent conflict in the views in Rajeevan (supra) and Purushan (supra) were not taken note of. The learned Single Judge is also of the opinion that this conflict was not considered by the later Division Bench in Mohanan v. State of Kerala 2007 (1) KHC 752: 2007 (1) KLT 845: ILR 2007 (1) Ker. 687: 2007 (1) KLJ 436. It is to resolve this controversy, a reference was made to the Division Bench, stating that the Division Bench may consider the question afresh or refer it to a larger Bench.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, relying on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Peter v. Sara 2006 KHC 1450: 2006 (4) KLT 219: ILR 2006 (4) Ker. 157: AIR 2007 Ker. 81, argued that a Single Judge is bound to follow the Division Bench ruling and when the question was answered twice by the Division Bench, reference to the Division Bench is not contemplated and hence there is no necessity to answer the reference. The learned counsel also argued that the petitioner was charged and convicted only for the offence under Section 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act and therefore, the question of applicability of Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act does not arise for consideration and in any case, there is no conflict in the views in Rajeevan (supra) and Purushan (supra) and therefore, there is no necessity to reconsider the earlier Division Bench decisions. The learned counsel, on the facts, stated that when neither in the final report nor at the time of evidence, the prosecution has a case that the petitioner was in possession of the can containing illicit liquor, with the knowledge that it is illicit liquor, Section 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act has no application and he could be convicted only for the offence under Section 63 of the Kerala Abkari Act. The learned counsel relied on an unreported decision of this Court in Crl RP No. 1674/2002. The learned counsel submitted that there is no conflict of views in Rajeevan (supra) and Purushan (supra) and therefore, no reconsideration of the earlier Division Bench decisions is warranted. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that there is no divergent views in Rajeevan (supra) and Purushan (supra) and the law laid down in Surendran (supra) and Mohanan (supra) does not warrant reconsideration.

3.Though the learned Single Judge is of the opinion that there is conflict in the views in Rajeevan and Purushan, we find no such conflict of views. Though there was conflict in the views in Rajeevan (supra) and Meenakshi v. Excise Inspector 1995 KHC 134: 1995 (1) KLT 738: 1995 (1) KLJ 573: ILR 1995 (3) Ker. 183, that conflict