KANNAPPANUNNY, S/O. VATTAPARAMBIL NARAYANAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY C.I. OF EXCISE AND CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, BOTH REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Kannappanunny, S/O. Vattaparambil Narayanan
State Of Kerala Rep. By C.I. Of Excise And Circle Inspector Of Excise, Both Rep. By The Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala
Click here to view full judgement.
R. Basant, J. -
(1.) AGAINST the concurrent verdict of guilty conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner -accused under Section 55(b) of the Kerala Abkari Act this revision petition is preferred.
(2.) THE gist of the allegations against the petitioner is that he along with his son was engaged illicitly in distilling arrack at 5.30 p.m. on 11.5.1991 in an open place near his house wen the Excise Party including PWs 1 and 2 apprehended them. Truly they had allegedly committed the offence punishable under Section 55(b) and 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act. Both the accused persons denied the offence alleged against them and thereupon the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 4 and proved Exts. P1 to P4. PW1 is the Preventive Officer who led the excise party and PW2 is an Excise Guard who was a member of the excise party. PWs 3 and 4 are witnesses who had allegedly witnessed the seizure. They are attestors to Ext. P1 seizure mahazar under which Mos 1 to 8 were allegedly seized. Ext. P2 is the occurrence report. Under Ext. P1 the wash used for spirit distillation as also the end product (liquor) were seized. They were sent for chemical examination. Exts. P3 and P4 are the reports submitted by the Chemical Examiner.
(3.) THE accused denied all circumstances which appeared in evidence and which were put to them. Their defence was one of total denial. No evidence oral or documentary was adduced on the side of the accused.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.