The integrity of evidence and proper procedures in arrest and seizure are crucial for upholding convictions under the Abkari Act, despite minor inconsistencies in sample handling.

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (Code).

2. The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Thiruvananthapuram for the offence punishable under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act , 1077. Simple imprisonment for a period of five years and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- are the sentence.

3. The prosecution was initiated based on the following facts and allegations:

PW3, the Excise Inspector, Amaravila Excise Range, along with other Excise officials were on duty at Excise Check Post, Amaravila, He saw a Maruti Car bearing Reg.No.KL-01-C-9693 coming along the southern side of Neyyattinkara-Kanyakumari N.H. in Chenkal Village in high speed. PW3 asked to stop the car and intercepted. The passengers tried to escape. Hence, the vehicle was inspected. 16 jerry cans each having 35 litres capacity were found in the car and contents were found to be spirit. On convincing that the appellant, who is the 1st accused and the other occupant in the car transported the spirit unauthorisedly, they were arrested and the contraband seized. The case was accordingly initiated against them.

4. The appellant alone stood trial. The 2nd accused absconded from the process of the court. On the appellant denying the charge, prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 7 and proved Exts.P1 to P17. MOs.1 and 2 were identified. During the examination under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code, the appellant denied the incriminating circumstances that appeared against him in evidence. He filed a written statement claiming that he was innocent. It was stated that the appellant was taken into custody from his house and making use of an abandoned vehicle, the case was foisted against him. Pointing out inconsistencies in the process of arrest, seizure and investigation, he maintained that the prosecution was unsustainable. No defence evidence was let in. The trial court, after considering the evidence in detail, found that the arrest, seizure and investigation were done properly. It was further held that the evidence tendered by the prosecution proved beyond doubt that the appellant transported 528 litres of spirit in the car bearing Reg.No.KL-01-C-9693. Accordingly, he was convicted. The said findings are under challenge in this appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. It was PW3, who detected the offence. He was the Excise Inspector, Amarvila Excise Range. He was on duty on 16.04.2007 at the Check Post, Amaravila. Going by his version, the incident took place at 3.40 p.m. He saw the car bearing Reg.No.KL-01-C-9693 was coming along the southern side of the road. Its driver speeded up on seeing the Excise party. When PW3 asked to stop the vehicle, its engine stopped suddenly. Immediately PW3 intercepted and on suspicion inspected the vehicle. He found 16 white jerry cans inside the car and the contents were found to be spirit. After preparing samples from each of the 16 jerry cans, he in the presence of his colleagues and witnesses, prepared Ext.P1 mahazar to seize the contraband and the samples. PWs.1 and 2 are the witnesses to Ext.P1. Both of them deposed that they signed Ext.P1 mahazer near the Amaravila Check Post. While PW1 deposed in detail regarding the inspection of the car, seizure of the contraband and arrest of the accused, PW2 did not fully support the case of the prosecution. His version was that as requested by the Excise officials, he signed the seizure mahazer and arrest memo. Although the learned Public Prosecutor put questions that may be put in the cross-examination no much evidence in support of the prosecution could be elicited from them.

7. The evidence of PW3 is fully corroborated by the evidence tende