ARUCHAMI S/O VELLA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was prosecuted by the Excise Circle Inspector, Palakkad Range, who was examined as PW.5, before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.II), Palakkad for offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act with a plea that on 25.7.2001 at 7 a.m., the appellant was found transporting 30 litres of toddy in a jerry can which was marked as M.O.1. THE appellant pleaded not guilty. THErefore, he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 5 were examined. Exts.P1 to P7 and M.O.1 were marked. When questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant took a defence of total denial. Though he was called upon to enter his defence, no defence evidence was adduced. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, on appraisal of the evidence, arrived at a finding of guilt. As a result, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of rupees one lakh with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. Assailing the above conviction and sentence, this appeal was preferred.

(2.) I have heard Advocate Sri. K.P. Balagopal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the Government Pleader. The judgment of the court below as well as the evidence on record were perused.

(3.) CAREFULLY going through the evidence of PWs 1 to 4, I find that there is nothing suggested to PWs 1 and 2 that they had got any animosity with the appellant so as to cook up a false case against him. PWs 1 and 2 with-stood the cross examination. Nothing was revealed out to disbelieve them. Ext.P2 corroborated with the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 3 and 4 also supports PWs.1 and 2 to some extent. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is further corroborated by Ext.P7. There is nothing to ignore or reject Ext.P7. Ext.P7 would show that the liquid that the appellant transported was nothing but toddy. In the light of the above evidence, I find that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and rightly come to a conclusion of guilt. The conviction under challenge is unassailable as it is based on cogent evidence.