Conviction based on credible police testimony is valid even without independent witnesses, provided the evidence is reliable and corroborated.

JUDGEMENT

SANJAY KAROL J.,

1. This appeal is at the instance of the Accused-Appellant namely, Sathyan against the order and judgement dated 5th September, 2019 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No. 2822 of 20081, wherein his prayer to set aside the conviction in S.C. No. 1140 of 2006 under Section 8 of the Abkari Act , was denied and the findings returned by 1 Hereinafter referred to as the "impugned judgement"

Digitally signed by Indu Marwah Date: 2023.08.11 16:17:57 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Ad Hoc-11), Kozhikode, in judgment dated 3rd November, 2008, were endorsed.

BRIEF FACTS

2. On 1stOctober 2003, the Appellant was arrested for carrying five litres of Arrack, in a jerry can, in his autorickshaw. The case was registered before the court of the Judicial Ist Class Magistrate, Kunnamangalam taking on the number C.P.36/06. Subsequently, the matter was committed, and eventually, made its way to the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Ad Hoc- 11), Kozhikode2.

3. Having framed 3 issues for consideration, the learned trial Court examined the testimonies of PW–1 who was the Excise Inspector Kunnamangalam range and the person who had detected the offence; PW–2, the Assistant Excise Inspector who was with PW-1 and that of PW–3, who was an independent witness but turned hostile.

4. On the first issue of the possession and recovery of arrack from the Appellant, and the second, concerning his guilt therefor, the court returned findings in the affirmative on the basis of the 2 Hereinafter “trial court”

testimonies of PW-1 namely Raveendandrananthan and PW-2, namely, C.K Manoharan, while acknowledging that both of these witnesses were official witnesses, and looking into decisions rendered by this court on that aspect, stated that no reason could be found to disbelieve their evidence or to believe that the articles in question, referred to as “thondi articles” were tampered with.

5. On sentencing, which was issue No. 3, the Court stated that it was a case not fit to be accorded the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and therefore the Appellant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment and a fine of one lakh rupees and, in default thereof, an additional period of 6 months rigorous imprisonment.

THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT

6. The High Court has observed that the ground of unexplained delay, on behalf of the Appellant, holds no merit as the Magistrate’s endorsement indicates that the material was produced on the first day and it was directed to be produced on the next working day.

7. The ground of delay in submitting the final report that is, nearly 3 years from the date of detection, was negatived by the court on the ground that the judgement relied on by the counsel for the Appellant3 has been declared per incurium by a subsequent judgement.4 The effect thereof being that delay, ipso facto, is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.

8. On the interpolation in the Mahazar, i.e., ext. P1 it was observed that the same could not be given too much importance as the crime and occurrence report registered on the same day stated that the sample collected was indeed a sample of 180ml and not 375 ml as was initially written on such exhibit. The chemical examiners report also notes that the sample was received with its seal intact and therefore no doubt could be seen from the point that the sample drawn was from the contraband recovered from the Appellant.

9. In view of the above findings, vide the impugned judgement, the sentence handed down was confirmed.

10. Hence the present appeal. ANALYSIS AND CONSIDERATION

11. Section 8 of the Abkari Act reads as follows- “8.

Prohibition of man