The appellant is the accused in S.C.No.157/2005 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Ad hoc-II), Kalpetta for an offence punishable under Section 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act ('the Act' for short).

2. The prosecution allegation is that on 25.09.2002, at about 20.50 hours, the appellant was found in possession of 1½ litres of illicit arrack, in contravention of the Act and Rules, on the side of the road, deviating from Nedumbala-Koleri public road and thereby committed the above said offence.

3. The learned Sessions Judge, as per judgment dated 14.09.2007 found him guilty of the offences, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the judgment of the court below, this appeal has been preferred.

4. According to the appellant, the lower court ought not to have relied on the false and interested testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The appellant was not in actual possession of the seized articles, which were found in an abandoned state. The appellant was falsely implicated in the case. The lower court ought to have found that there was unexplained and undue delay in producing the material objects and in preparing and sending the forwarding note to the court. Therefore, the appellant prays for setting aside the judgment of the court below.

5. In this case, the appellant was intercepted along with 1½ litres of illicit arrack on 25.09.2002, at about 2.50 hours. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exts.P1 to P7, MO1 and MO2 were marked. But, no evidence was adduced by the appellant.

6. According to the prosecution, the Sub Inspector had detected the offence alleged to have committed by the accused. According to PW1, while he was on patrol duty along with police party on 25.09.2002, he had seen the appellant on the side of Nedumbala-Koleri public road, standing with a Can in his hand. The Sub Inspector inspected the Can, which was carried by him and it was found that the Can contained arrack. On searching his body, a glass was also found. The Sub Inspector arrested the accused and collected sample out of the arrack found in the Can carried by him. The Sub Inspector was examined as PW1. According to his evidence, he restrained the accused and examined the contents of the Can in the presence of the witnesses. On smelling and tasting the liquid inside the Can, he found that it was arrack. The glass was concealed in the waist of the accused. PW4 arrested the accused after preparing the arrest memo, which was marked as Ext.P2. He has collected the sample of arrack in two bottles, having a capacity of 300 ml each and affixed labels containing the signature of himself, the accused and the witnesses upon them. Then, he sealed and labelled the Can with the remaining arrack also. The glass was also sealed. Thereafter, he prepared a seizure mahazar, which was marked as Ext.P3. On reaching the Police Station, he registered the case against the accused under Section 58 of the Act. Ext.P4 is the First Information Report. The contraband articles were produced before the court on 01.10.2002. PW4 has stated that MO1 articles were kept under his custody till its production before the court. Ext.P5 is the list of articles. PW4 had prepared the forwarding note requesting to send the sample for chemical analysis. Ext.P6 is the copy of the forwarding note. Ext.P7 is the chemical analysis report obtained after analysing the sample in the case. PW5 is the independent witness, who had turned hostile to the prosecution. He did not admit the signature on Ext.P3 scene mahazar, Ext.P2 arrest memo and the label upon MO2. PW2 is the witness to the scene mahazar, which was marked as Ext.P1. PW1 is the Police Constable, who had accompanied PW4 on the day. PW3 was the then Sub Inspector of Kalpetta police station, who had conducted investigation in the case. The lower c