The court affirmed that possession of illegal liquor constitutes a punishable offence, with strict adherence to evidentiary requirements for conviction.

O R D E R

The petitioner, who is the accused in S.C.No.143 of

1998 of the Assistant Sessions Court, Hosdrug, was convicted under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three more months. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged his conviction and sentence before the Additional Sessions Court(Adhoc II), Kasaragod through Crl.A.No.150 of 1999. The learned Additional Sessions Judge concurred with the findings entered by the trial court and dismissed the appeal through the impugned judgment.

2. The prosecution case is that on 22.8.1997, PW1, Sub Inspector of Police, Hosdrug, along with the police party while engaged in an abkari raid, at about 7 p.m., could see the petitioner carrying a black can of 10 litre capacity, containing 6 litres of arrack. The petitioner was intercepted and the contraband was seized through Ext.P3 seizure mahazar. Samples were drawn. The petitioner was placed under arrest. They went to the police station with the petitioner and the material objects and registered Crime No.584 of 1997 through Ext.P2 first information report on the basis of Ext.P1 suo motu statement. The samples were sent for chemical analysis through court. PW5, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Hosdrug conducted the investigation. Ext.P5 is the certificate of chemical analysis. He obtained Ext.P6 sketch from the village authorities. PW1 completed the investigation and laid the final report.

3. On the side of prosecution PWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. MO1 was identified. No defence evidence was adduced. The trial court found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act , convicted him thereunder and sentenced him as aforesaid. The said conviction and sentence stand confirmed by the lower appellate court through the impugned judgment.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is no sufficient evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence alleged and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below are liable to be set aside.

5. PW1 was the Sub Inspector of Police, Hosdrug.

According to him, while he along with two other Sub Inspectors of Police and P.C.441 were engaged in abkari raid, they could see the petitioner coming with a black can. He was intercepted and the can was examined, which revealed that it contained 6 litres of arrack. It was seized through Ext.P3 seizure mahazar in the presence of witnesses and samples were drawn. He identified the can as MO1 and samples were produced before court and were sent for chemical analysis. PW2 was a probationary Sub Inspector as on the date of occurrence and he also had accompanied PW1. He identified the petitioner and corroborated the versions of PW1 regarding the seizure.

6. PW3 is an independent witness who has stated in evidence that he saw the seizure of MO1 from the petitioner. He admitted his signature in Ext.P3. PW4 is one of the attestors to Ext.P4 scene mahazar.

7. PW5 who conducted the investigation has proved Ext.P5 certificate of chemical analysis. He obtained Ext.P6 scene plan from the Village Officer. Ext.P5 certificate of chemical analysis shows that the two sealed bottles, each of 375 ml, involved in crime No.584/1997, were received at the laboratory and the seals were in tact. On analysis, it has come out that it contained 16.81% and 15.76% per volume of ethyl alcohol. On going through the evidence, it seems that there is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the findings entered by both the courts below on proved facts. On going through the concurrent findings on facts entered by both the courts below, I do not find any illegality, irregularity, or impropriety in the conviction passed by both the courts below. Matters being so, the conviction is not liabl