The conviction under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act was upheld due to strong corroborative evidence and confirmed contraband analysis.

JUDGMENT

Appellant is the accused in S.C.No.717/2007 of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-II), Kasaragod, who stands convicted under Section 8 (2) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of ₹1,00,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

2. The prosecution case is that on 07.03.2006 at 5.45 p.m., while PW1 Sub Inspector of Police, Kumbla and party were engaged in patrol duty, they got an information that arrack was being transported by autorickshaw bearing Regn.No.KL.14-C-5402 from Permudha side to Seethangoli side. When they reached near Puthige Panchayath Office, they could see the said autorickshaw coming from Permudha side. On seeing the Police vehicle, the driver of the autorickshaw swerved the autorickshaw to the road side and stopped it just behind the waiting shed at the road side. The driver and another person, who were present in the autorickshaw, got down and took to heels. They were chased and one of them was caught. The appellant herein was the said person, who was so caught.

3. When they inspected the autorickshaw, they could see that the same was loaded with 12 sack bundles containing a total number of 3600 packets of arrack, each containing 100 ml. PW1 and the police party made it sure that the contents of the packets were arrack, by smelling and tasting it. Two samples of 300 ml. each were drawn. The contraband was seized through Ext.P3 mahazar. The accused was placed under arrest through Ext.P1 arrest memo. He took the accused, the contraband, the samples and records to the police station, where he registered the crime through Ext.P4 FIR. The other person, who had escaped from the autorickshaw, was arraigned as the 2nd accused in Ext.P4. He sent the samples along with Ext.P5 property list and forwarding note, the copy of which is Ext.P6, to the court on the next day itself. The Assistant Excise Commissioner prepared inventory for the remaining portion of the contraband. PW5 Sub Inspector of Police, Kumbla conducted the investigation and filed Ext.P9 report before court for deleting the 2nd accused from the array of the accused, for want of proper identification. On getting Ext.P10 certificate of chemical analysis, he filed the final report in the case.

4. On the side of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exts.P1 to P10 were marked. No defence evidence was adduced. The court below found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 8 (2) of the Abkari Act , convicted him thereunder and sentenced him as aforesaid.

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

6. PW1 Sub Inspector of Police, Kumbla has fully supported the prosecution case. He received the information regarding the transportation of arrack by autorickshaw bearing Regn. No.KL.14-C-5402 from Permudha side to Seethangoli side. According to PW1, he along with the police party were in search of the said autorickshaw and when they reached near the Panchayat office at Puthige, they could see the autorickshaw coming and on seeing the police vehicle, the person, who drove the autorickshaw swerved to the side and stopped it behind the bus waiting shed at the road side. Immediately, both the persons, who were present in the autorickshaw, jumped out and took to heels. They were chased and the police party could seize the appellant alone. The other person escaped. From the inspection of the autorickshaw, 3600 packets, each containing 100 ml. of arrack could be seized from 12 sack bundles loaded in the autorickshaw. Samples were drawn and the accused was placed under arrest. PW1 registered the crime. On the very next day, the samples and documents were produced before court.

7. PW4 was one of the Police Constable, who was present along with PW1 at the time of arrest, seizure etc. He has fully corroborated the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. There is absolutely no contradiction in the evidence of PWs.1 and 4