IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU MONDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 19TH BHADRA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 973 of 2000 -------------------------------------- CRL.A.257/1997 OF SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD, CC.1022/1996 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, HOSDRUG .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------------- KUNHIPURAYIL KORAN, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. CHIRUKANDAN, PALIYANNUR IN CHEEMENI VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP MOHAN, SRI.K.RAJEEVAN, SMT.T.SUDHAMANI, SRI.M.THAMBAN. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHEEMENI POLICE STATION. 2. STATE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSCUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.K. SURESH. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/09/2007,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.P. NO. 5200/2000 IN CRL.R.P. NO. 973/2000 DISMISSED 10/09/2007. SD/- K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// prv. K.R.UDAYABHANU, J ----------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.973 of 2000 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of September, 2007 O R D E R The revision petitioner stands convicted for the offence under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default, to undergo R.I. for a period of six months. 2. The prosecution case is that the accused, on 4.5.1996 at about 7.00 p.m. at Puliyannur in Cheemeni village on the river back situated 50 mtrs. north west of the house of the accused, was found in possession of wash fit for distillation of illicit arrack. 3. The prosecution evidence consisted of the testimony of PWs' 1 to 5, Exts. P1 to P4 and MO1. 4. The only direct evidence in the matter is that of PW1, the detecting police officer. PWs' 2 and 3, the occurrence witnesses, who admitted their signatures in the mahazar, did not support the prosecution as to having witnessed of the incident. The point raised by the counsel for the revision petitioner is that in Ext. P1 seizure mahazar it is stated that the tin containing wash was detected as seen kept on the river bank just 50 mtrs. away CRRP973/2000 Page numbers from the house of the accused. But, in the FI statement PW1 has stated that the accused was found carrying wash on his head and walking towards his house. When questioned PW1 has no proper explanation as to the disparity. It is also noted that the FIS has reached in the court only on 13.5.1996 but the date of the incident is 4.5.1996. I find that both the courts below have not considered the above discrepancy in the prosecution evidence which I find is found quite immaterial. In the circumstances, I find that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. The findings of the courts below are set aside. The accused is acquitted. The criminal revision petition is allowed as above. K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE csl