The court emphasized the sufficiency of direct evidence in illicit liquor cases and the importance of procedural integrity in affirming convictions under the Abkari Act.

O R D E R

The Circle Inspector of Excise, Cherthala Excise Range, prosecuted the revision petitioner before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Cherthala, accusing offence under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act , with an allegation that at 4 P.M., on 22/10/1998 while the Excise Inspector attached to the Circle Office, who was examined as PW1, moving on petrol duty along with PW2, a Preventive Officer, and other officials, found the revision petitioner carrying five litres of illicit arrack in a can which was marked as MO1. Case was registered by PW7. Investigation was conducted by PW7 and PW6. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class II, Cherthala. On finding that the offence alleged is exclusively triable by a Court of Session, the case was committed to the Court of Session, Alappuzha. From there it was made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Cherthala.

2. In response to the process issued, the revision petitioner entered appearance before the trial court and pleaded not guilty to the charge when the charge was framed, read over and explained. Therefore, he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 7 were examined. Exhibits P1 to P3 and MO1 were marked. After closing the evidence for the prosecution, the revision petitioner was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the incriminating evidence. One witness was examined as DW1 in attempt to bring on record that, on 22/10/1998, the Excise Officials went in search of the licensee of a nearby toddy shop where the revision petitioner was the employed and since the licensee could not be found out, the revision petitioner was asked to report before the Excise Officials and he was falsely implicated.

3. On appraisal of the evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge arrived at a conclusion of guilty. Consequently, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for two months. 4. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner preferred Crl.Appeal No.329/2003. The learned Sessions Judge, Alappuzha, by the impugned judgment dated 25/06/2004, while confirming the conviction and sentence dismissed the appeal. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition is preferred.

5. Heard either side. Perused the judgment impugned and evidence on record.

6. PW1, as stated earlier, is the Detecting Officer. PW2 was accompanying PW1. They had given evidence in support of the prosecution case that at 4 P.M., on 22/10/1998, while they were moving on petrol duty, the revision petitioner was found at Maniyankattu Chira in Ward No. I of Ezhupunna Panchayat with MO1 can in his hands.

Seeing the Excise party, the revision petitioner got puzzled and attempted to turn away. He was intercepted. The contents in MO1 were tested by smell and taste and convinced that it was nothing but illicit arrack. Sample was taken in a bottle. Sample bottle and MO1 were sealed and labels were affixed. Exhibit P1 mahazar was prepared. Material Objects along with the revision petitioner were produced before the Excise Office. PWs 3 to 5 were cited by the prosecution as independent witnesses. They didn't support the prosecution. PW7 would depose that on the basis of Exhibit P1, case was registered for which Exhibit P3 Crime and Occurrence Report was prepared. PW7 produced the material objects before Court. PW6 and 7 conducted the investigation. Therefore, the question that arises is whether the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 are believable or not. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner took me through the evidence on record. Though PWs 1 and 2 were subjected to searching cross-examination, no material was disclosed to come to a conclusion that PWs 1 and 2 were anyway ill-motivated ag