Defects in evidence documentation undermine a conviction under the Abkari Act, justifying acquittal.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the accused in S.C.No.335 of 2010 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Kasaragod, invoking the provisions under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (‘Cr.P.C’ for short), challenging the judgment dated 28.11.2012 of conviction for the offence under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act , and consequent imposition of sentence passed in that sessions case and also the judgment dated 23.12.2013 in Crl. Appeal No.259 of 2012, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Court-II, Kasaragod, whereby the appeal filed by the revision petitioner ended in dismissal.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 30.01.2009 at about

8.00 p.m., the accused was found transporting 8 bottles containing 180 ml of each of Indian made foreign liquor through a public road, in contravention of the provisions of the Kerala Abkari Act . On detection of the offence, the accused was arrested from the place of occurrence itself, and on completion of the investigation, the final report was filed before the Jurisdictional Magistrate, and it was taken cognisance on appearance of the accused, after completing the legal formalities, the case was committed to the sessions division, Kasaragod, and the case was thereafter made over to the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Kasaragod, for trial and disposal.

3. During trial, from the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to

5 were examined, and Exts.P1 to P11 documents were marked. When the accused was examined under Section 313 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C, he denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out against him. No defence evidence was adduced from the side of the accused. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act and consequently, he was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

4. Being aggrieved, the accused preferred Crl.A.No.259 of

2012 before the Sessions division, which was made over to Additional Sessions Court-II, Kasaragod, which also ended in dismissal. Hence, the accused is now before this Court with this revision petition

5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in Ext.P7 property list, the specimen seal of the officer who had detected the offence is absent. For that reason alone, the petitioner is entitled to be acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt. In support of the aforesaid argument, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Girish v. State of Kerala [2023 (7) KHC 435]

7. The learned counsel further submitted that apart from the aforesaid infirmity, the inventory list marked as Ext.P9, is not prepared in accordance with the provisions under Section 53A (2) of the Abkari Act . Ext.P9 contain the dated signature of the Excise Inspector, whereas the signature of the Deputy Excise Commissioner does not contain the date. Only the signature of the said officer is seen in that document. With regard to the defect in the inventory, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court inBalakrishna Rai v. State of Kerala [2020 (3) KHC 286]. According to the learned counsel, for all these reasons, the petitioner-accused is entitled to be acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt.

8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial court as well as the appellate court analysed the evidence on record and arrived at a finding that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances,