JIL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act (for short "the Act") in S.C. No. 11/2011 of the Court of Session Ernakuiam. He was prosecuted along with his brother as the second accused, on the allegation that they illicitly stored and possessed huge quantity of spirit at the shed No.4/109Aof the Pallipuram Grama Panchayat which belongs to the appellant. The Sub Inspector of Police, Munambam conducted a search at the said shed on 2.12.2005 on the basis of reliable information. On the basis of the said information, the Police party first searched the house of the father of the appellant, but nothing could be found there. Immediately, they searched the shed No.4/109A attached to the house building, and on search, the Police seized a huge quantity of 1830 litres of spirit. When interrogated, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 told the Sub Inspector that it was the spirit stored and kept there by three other persons. On the basis of the statements given by the accused Nos. 1 and 2, the Police registered a crime against five persons including the appellant. The allegation in the F.I.R is that the accused Nos.1 and 2 permitted the accused Nos.3 to 5 to store and possess huge quantity of spirit at the shed which belongs to the 1st accused. The 1st accused in the F.I.R is the appellant herein, and the second accused is his brother. After investigation, the Police submitted final report against the appellant and his brother, but the other three accused were deleted.

(2.) The appellant and his brother appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc-III), North Paravur and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them under Section 55(a) of the Act.

(3.) The prosecution examined 11 witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P17 documents. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating circumstances and contended that the shed where the Police conducted search was long back let out to the 5th accused, and that the huge quantity of spirit was kept there by the accused Nos.3 to 5. The accused Nos.3 and 4 are the employees and helpers of the 5th accused, according to them. In spite of opportunities granted, the accused did not adduce any evidence in defence.