When a defendant provides a plausible explanation for possession and alleges mala fides, the prosecution must overcome the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt; procedural irregularities and witness hostility mandate that a conviction cannot rely solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a detecting officer.

ORDER :

JOBIN SEBASTIAN, J.

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act by the Assistant Sessions Court, Nedumangad as per the judgment dated 02.08.2013 in S.C. No.1006/2002, which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Court-V, Thiruvananthapuram, as per judgment dated 26.11.2014 in Crl. Appeal No.367/2013. The revision petitioner is the 1^st accused in the said case.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 04.05.2002 at about 8.05 a.m., the accused were found possessing and transporting 350 kg of palm jaggery and 25 kg of ‘karinja patta’, in a car bearing Registration No. KL 08 B 6310 through Aryanad - Kittichal road, for the purpose of brewing arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act. Thus, the accused are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section 55(g) of the .

3. During trial, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW6 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P6. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the first accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, during which he denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out against him in evidence. As it was not a fit case to acquit the accused under Section 232 of Cr.P.C, the 1^st accused was called upon to enter upon his defence and adduce evidence, if any, in support thereof. From the side of the accused, three documents were marked as Exts. D1 to D3, and the 1st accused himself was examined as DW1 under Section 315 of the Cr.P.C.

4. Finally, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the first accused guilty of the offences punishable under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act, and he was convicted. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 55(g) of the . In default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.367/2013 before the Sessions Court-V, Thiruvananthapuram. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, confirmed the finding and sentence passed by the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, the first accused has preferred the present revision petition.

6. Heard Sri. M. Sreekumar, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri. U. Jayakrishnan, the learned Public Prosecutor, also perused the records.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is wholly innocent of the allegations levelled against him and that the present case was falsely foisted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Aryanad Police Station, at the instigation of the Circle Inspector of Police attached to the same station. According to the learned counsel, the said Circle Inspector was harbouring animosity towards the accused because, on an earlier occasion, the accused had hesitated to hand over his vehicle for the private use of the Circle Inspector despite persistent insistence from the latter. It was contended that, owing to such personal enmity, the Circle Inspector, through his subordinate officer, namely the Sub-Inspector, engineered the registration of the present case against the accused.

8. The learned counsel further submitte