The appellant is the accused in SC.No.650 of 2003

on the files of the Additional District and Sessions Judge

(Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Mavelikkara. This case arose out of

the final report submitted by the Excise Inspector of the

Mavelikkara Excise Rage, on completion of the investigation in

Crime No.70/2002, which was registered against the appellant

for the offences punishable under Sections 8(1), 8(2) & 55(a) of

the Kerala Abkari Act. The trial court found the appellant guilty

of the offences under Sections 8(1), 8(2) & 55(a) of the Kerala

Abkari Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a term of 3 ½ years and to pay a fine of

Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year.

2. The prosecution allegation is that on 20.03.2002,

at 8.00 a.m., CW1, the Preventive Officer, Mavelikkara Excise

Range Office and party, while on patrol duty through Vettiyar

Village, Arunootimangalam Muri to Kallumala, while travelling

through the PIP canal road, found the appellant on the southern

side of the canal road transporting illicit arrack of about 1 ½

3

litres in a 1 ½ plastic bottle, near to the culvert leading to

Thachayil house, seized the property, arrested the appellant and

charge sheeted the case. The accused was tried before the

Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Court,

Mavelikkara, where he was found guilty and convicted. Highly

aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed against the

appellant, he preferred a Criminal appeal under Section 374(3)

of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended

that the trial court was wrong in appreciating the evidence let in

and convicting the appellant. It is also contended that there

was no reasonable evidence on record to conclude that M.O.1

was possessed by the appellant and it was taken from the

physical possession of the appellant.

4. The appellant has been falsely implicated in the

crime at the instance of one Vijayakumar, who is an Abkari

vendor and neighbour of the appellant, only for wreak

vengeance for filing several complaints against him. The

independent occurrence witness was examined as PW2 to prove

Ext.P1 mahazar, arrest and seizure of the accused and

contraband item. But, he did not support the prosecution case

4

and he categorically denied that he did not see the accused as a

person, who engaged in selling arrack. There is no evidence

from anywhere except the Excise officials to connect the

appellant with the commission of the said crime.

5. The trial court believed the version of the Excise

officials, for convicting the appellant. Under the above

circumstances, the appellant prays for setting aside the

conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc), Mavelikkara in

S.C.No.650 of 2003.

6. The evidence of the prosecution consists of oral

testimony of PWs 1 to 5 and Exts.P1 to P9 and MO1. According

to the prosecution, on 20.03.2002 at 8.00 a.m., while PW1,

who was the Preventive Officer, Mavelikara Excise Range Office

on patrol duty through Vettiyar Village, Arunootimangalam Muri

to Kallumala, travelling through the PIP canal road, found

accused on the southern side of the canal road, near to the

culvert leading to Thachayil house under suspicious

circumstances and was intercepted. Accordingly, he seized the

contraband items from the possession of the appellant and on

inspection, he found a plastic bottle, having a capacity of 1.5

5

litres containing full of liquid in it. He tasted and smelled the

liquid and confirmed it as illicit arrack.

7. He prepared Ext.P1 seizure mahazar. He arrested

the appellant and prepared Ext.P2 arrest memo, Ext.P3 arrest

notice and Ext.P4 notice to legal aid counsel. Mo1 is the seized

plastic bottle of 1.5 litres. He took sample of 200 ml. from

MO1 and affixed his personal seal on it and label as