The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of establishing the authenticity of seized samples and the competence of investigating officers, as mandated by the Abkari Act, to substantiate allegations under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

K. BABU, J.

1. These appeals arise from the common judgment dated 14.12.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Court (Abkari Cases), Kottarakkara in S.C. Nos.194/2003 and 195/2003. Accused No. 1 in S.C. No. 194/2003, accused No. 1 in 195/2003 and accused Nos.2 and 9, who are common in both the Sessions cases, are the appellants. Accused No. 1 in S.C. No. 195/2003 is the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 57/2012. The appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 58/2012 is accused No. 1 in S.C. No. 194/2003. The common accused No. 9 is the appellant in Crl. Appeal Nos. 2209/2011 and 2212/2011. The common accused No. 2 is the appellant in Crl. Appeal Nos.49/2012 and 854/2022. The sessions cases were charge sheeted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Investigation Team for Spirit Smuggling Cases, Thiruvananthapuram.

PROSECUTION CASE

S.C. No. 194/2003:

2. On 24.09.2000 at 8.30 p.m. the Additional Sub Inspector of Police, Kottarakkara seized two cans of 10 litre capacity with arrack and another can containing 2 litres of arrack along with a glass tumbler and a sum of Rs. 350/- from the possession of the accused No. 1 who was serving as salesman in Toddy Shop No. 11 of Kottarakkara Range.

S.C. No. 195/2003:

2.1. On 30.09.2000, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Kottarakkara conducted a raid in T.S. No. 11 of Kottarakkara Range at 3.30 p.m. and detected 32 litres of arrack in four cans along with a glass tumbler and a sum of Rs. 1110/- from the possession of the accused No. 1 therein, who was a salesman in the toddy shop.

2.2. Two separate FIRs were registered in respect of the two seizures effected as mentioned above. Crime No. 715/2000 was registered based on the seizure effected on 24.09.2000. Crime No. 721/2000 was registered in respect of the seizure effected on 30.09.2000. Accused No. 1 in both cases were arrested on the respective dates of the seizure itself.

3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Investigation Team for Spirit Smuggling Cases, Thiruvananthapuram was entrusted with the investigation of the cases. He completed the investigation and submitted two separate final reports before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Kottarakkara against the appellants and the other accused. The cases were committed to the Sessions Court, Kollam from where it was made over to the Trial Court. The Trial Court consolidated both the sessions cases and proceeded with a single trial.

4. On the appearance of the accused charges were framed against them for the offences punishable under Sections 55(a), 55(b), 55(i) and 8(2) read with 8(1) of the Abkari Act and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges, and therefore, they came to be tried by the Trial Court for the aforesaid offences.

5. The prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 35 and proved Exts.P1 to P62 and MOs 1 and 2 series and MO3.

6. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. They pleaded innocence. The Trial Court heard the matter under Section 232 Cr.P.C. and found evidence against the accused and hence they were called upon to enter on their defence and adduce evidence, if any, they may have in support thereof.

7. At the closure of the trial, the Court below convicted accused No. 1 in both cases and the common accused Nos.2 and 9 under Section 55(i) and 8(2) of the Abkari Act. The other accused were acquitted of the charges [As accused No. 8 did not face the trial the case against him was split up and refiled]. The Trial Court sentenced the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and pay a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh each under section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. No separate sentence was awarded under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act.

8. Heard Sri. Nireesh Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused No. 9 in Crl. Appeal Nos. 2212/2011 and 2209/2011, Sri. S. Rajeev, the learned counsel appearing for appellants/accused No. 1 i