JUDGMENT

These two appeals are filed by the accused in same case and therefore, I am disposing these appeals by a common judgment.

2. The first accused in S.C.No.291/1998 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Kollam filed Criminal Appeal No.1613/2005 and the second accused in the same case filed Criminal Appeal No.1617/2005.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that, on 12.02.1998 at 12.30 AM, first accused drove Ambassador Car bearing No.KLF-8491 through Puthiyakavu-Chakkuvally road in which he carried 10 litres of liquor in a white 10 litre cannas and 5 polethen pouches packed with liquor (100 ml in each pouch) sells it and also stored for sale. It is alleged that the first accused also kept Rs.18,000/- in the car and the same is the sale proceeds. It is also alleged that he sold 235 litres of spirit to accused 2 and 3. Another allegation is that an amount of Rs.14,000/- was recovered from accused and 3. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence under Sections

55(a) and (i) of the Abkari Act.

4. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined altogether 7 witnesses. Exts.P1 to P10 are the exhibits. Three witnesses were examined on the side of the defence. Ext.D1 is the copy of the inventory report.

5. After going through the evidence and documents on record, the trial court found that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 8(1) of the Abkari Act. The appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh each under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. Moreover, as per the report dated 19.10.2020 of the Vth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kollam, it is reported that the third accused faced trial and he is already acquitted as per the judgment dated

05.03.2009.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants raised two points. The learned counsel submitted that there is a delay of

70 days in producing the contraband articles before the Court after seizure. That will go to the root of the case in the light of several judgments. The counsel further submitted that the forwarding note is not produced and marked in this case. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted here is a case where the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that there is oral and documentary evidence to prove the case. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the trial court, after appreciating the evidence in detail, came to the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Public Prosecutor takes me through paragraph 15 of the impugned judgment and submitted that the trial court considered the matter in detail and there is nothing to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that huge amount of contraband is seized from the appellants and in this case, this Court may not interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed.

9. This Court considered the contentions of the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor. It is an admitted fact that there is huge delay in producing the property before the Court. Admittedly the detection was on 12.02.1998. The property was produced on 24.04.1998. Even though PW7 gave an explanation to the effect that the seized articles were produced along with the accused, but it was returned for proper custody and later it was again produced on 24.04.1998. I perused Exts.P7 and P8 property list. There is nothing to show in these documents to show that the property was originally produced and it was returned by the court concerned. There is only one endorsement in the property list, which will show that the property was produced on 24.04.1998. There is absolutely no explanation for the delay of about 70 days in producing the property before the Court. If there is unexp