The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper identification and connection of the accused with the seized property, and the lack of evidence to establish the accused's guilt.

1. The appellant herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under S.8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act (‘the Act’ for short) in S.C.698/2006 of the Court of Session, Pathanamthitta.

2. The prosecution case is that, at about 4.45 p.m. on 3.12.2004, the accused was found possessing 11/2 litres of arrack in a plastic can. On seeing the Police party led by the Sub Inspector of Police, Pulikeezhu, the accused abandoned the plastic can containing arrack, and he ran off and escaped. When the Sub Inspector examined the plastic can, he found 11/2 litres of arrack therein. It was seized as per a mahazar. On 823 the basis of the seizure, and also on the basis of the details given by the witnesses, who witnessed the incident, the Sub Inspector registered the F.I.R against the accused. The Sub Inspector himself investigated the case and submitted final report also in court. On committal, the case came up before the Court of Session from where it was made over to the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) I, Pathanamthitta for trial and disposal.

3. The accused appeared before the trial court and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under S.8(2) of the Act. The prosecution examined four witnesses in the trial court and proved Exts.P1 to P9 documents. The MO1 and M02 properties were also identified during trial. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances and projected a defence that he has nothing to do with the property involved in this case, when examined under S.313 Cr.P.C. He did not adduce any evidence in defence.

4. On an appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court found the accused guilty under S.8 (2) of the Act. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-by judgment dated 15.12.2009. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the accused has come up in appeal.

5. When this appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no material to identify the accused in this case as the person who abandoned the plastic can containing arrack at the spot of detection, and that there are some legal infirmities also in this case. One is that the property was not produced in court immediately after the detection, and the other is that the forwarding note does not contain the specimen of the seal affixed on the sample. This is a case where the accused could not be arrested on the spot. The prosecution case is that on seeing the Police party, the accused ran off and escaped after abandoning the plastic can containing arrack. PW1 and PW2 examined as independent witnesses turned hostile. PW3 is the Police Constable who assisted the Sub Inspector and PW4 is the Sub Inspector, who detected the offence. Everything was done by him as a one man show. He registered the crime, he investigated the case and also submitted final report in court. Of course, that by itself will not go to the benefit of the accused. The question is whether any sort of prejudice was caused to the accused by the one-man show made by the Sub Inspector. The F.I.R and also the Ext.P1 mahazar will show that the Sub Inspector had identified the accused, as Vikram. A reading of the F.I.R will show that the Sub Inspector had prior acquaintance with the person, who ran off and escaped. But when cross-examined, he stated that the name and details of the person were given by a person who witnessed the incident, and that he happened to register a crime against the accused on the basis of the materials furnished by the said witness. Thus, the answers given by him in cross-examination will show that he had no prior acquaintance with the accused, and that he had not seen the accused on any previous occasion. The mahazar or the F.I.R does not contain the details to identify the person, who ran off and escaped. In court, he stated that the accused is 824 the person who ran off and escaped from the spot of detection. This evidence is quite unacc