Prosecution must demonstrate the illicit nature of liquor through reliable evidence, and procedural requirements need to be balanced against the accused's rights.

O R D E R

Revision petitioners are the 1st and 2nd accused in C.C.No.127/1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Thrissur. They, along with the 3rd accused, were prosecuted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Mannuthi police station in Crime No.209/1996 accusing offence under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act with a plea that at 12.20 p.m on 31.10.1996, the first revision petitioner was found driving a mini lorry bearing Registration No.KL 04-B 919 with the 2nd revision petitioner as his helper and that the mini lorry had a secret chamber near the cabin which contained 4276 bottles, each containing 180 mls, of Super Star Brandy (total 769.68 litres). The liquor bottles were said to have been transported for the 3rd accused without any valid permit.

2. According to the prosecution, PW2, the Circle Inspector of Police, Ollur police station got a confidential information about the illicit transport of the liquor. He intercepted the lorry in front of Mannuthi Police Station and on : 2:

inspection, the above mentioned bottles of liquor were found hidden inside the secret chamber near the cabin. Liquor bottles were seized for which Ext.P1 seizure mahazer was prepared. Revision petitioners were arrested. They were produced along with Ext.P1 and the material objects, before PW3, the Sub Inspector of Police in charge of the police station with Ext.P2 report. PW3 registered the case and took over the investigation. Six bottles were taken as samples and forwarded to the Chemical Examiner. The Chemical Examiner reported that the samples contained ethyl alcohol varying from 44.34% to 44.87% by volume. After completing investigation, charge sheet was submitted before the learned Magistrate against the three accused.

3. Responding to the process issued, all the accused entered appearance. When the particulars of the offence were read over and explained, all of them pleaded not guilty. Therefore, they were sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 6 were examined. Exts.P1 to P5 and MOs 1 to 5 were marked. When questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they took a plea of total : 3:

denial. No defence evidence was let in. On appraisal of the evidence, the learned Magistrate arrived at a finding that the prosecution had succeeded to establish the offence as against accused 1 and 2. At the same time there is failure to establish that the liquor was brought for the 3rd accused or that the 3rd accused was any way involved with the transport of the liquor. Consequently, the 3rd accused was found not guilty and acquitted. The revision petitioners were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence of simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.

4. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, the revision petitioners preferred Crl.A.No.337/2002 before the Sessions judge, Thrissur. By the impugned judgment dated 12.3.2004, the learned Sessions Judge, while confirming the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence, this revision petition is preferred.

5. I have heard Dr. K.P. Satheesan, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Smt. Sareena : 4:

George, the learned Government Pleader. Perused the judgment impugned.

6. In support of the prosecution case, there is the testimony of Pws 1, 2 and 6. PW2 is the Circle Inspector, who detected the material objects. Pws 1 and 6 are the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and the Head Constable who were accompanying PW2. They had given evidence regarding seizure of liquor bottles from the lorry. Their evidence is supported by Ext.P1 seizure mahazr. Pws 4 and 5 are the attestors to Ext.P1. They had also supported the prosecution case. PW3 is the investigating officer. He had proved Exts.P2, P3, P4 and P5. In Ext.P5, the Assistant Chemical Examiner had reported that the samples co