O R D E R

The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced concurrently by the courts below under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act.

2. Heard.

3. The prosecution allegation is that on

21.08.2009 at about 3 pm, the revision petitioner was found in possession of 4 litres of arrack inside his house, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act. The revision petitioner was arrested from the spot. The contraband articles were also seized from the spot.

4. PW1 and PW2 were the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the occurrence. They supported the prosecution case with regard to the arrest of the revision petitioner from the house. They also admitted the signature in Ext.P1 seizure mahazar. PW3 was the Excise Inspector, who detected the offence. He seized the contraband and arrested the revision petitioner. He also had taken the sample from the contraband. PW4 was the Panchayath Secretary, who was examined to prove Ext.P10 ownership certificate of the house. PW5 was the Village Officer, who proved Ext.P11 site plan.

5. The courts below correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and concurrently found that the revision petitioner committed the offence under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. It appears that the sample was properly taken. PW3 was also a competent officer to detect the offence and to seize the contraband. It further appears that the arrest was also proved through the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and Ext.P2 arrest memo. The sample was also duly produced before the court without any delay. The sample was also sent to the laboratory with a forwarding note containing the facsimile of the seal. Having gone through the relevant inputs, I do not find anything to hold that the appreciation of the evidence by the courts below was perverse or incorrect. Nothing has been also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner to indicate that the appreciation of evidence by the courts below was perverse or incorrect. In the said circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction passed by the courts below under Section

8(2) of the Abkari Act.

6. As regards the sentence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has pleaded for leniency. It appears that the revision petitioner was in custody in connection with this case from 21.08.2009 to 25.09.2009. The revision petitioner was aged 40 years during the relevant period. He is presently aged 51 years. No previous conviction has been proved against the revision petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the quantity of the contraband seized and also taking into consideration that the petitioner is a first time offender, I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the courts below can be modified and reduced to simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and in default to simple imprisonment for one month under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act to meet the ends of justice. It is ordered accordingly. The revision petitioner is entitled to set off for the period of his detention in connection with this case under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The revision petitioner shall surrender before the trial court on 02.11.2020 to suffer the sentence.

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in part as above.