IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE. P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/17TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRRP.No. 1893 of 2004 (B) ------------------------- CRA.203/2000 of ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT FAST TRACK (ADHOC-II), KOZHIKODE CC.603/1997 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, PERAMBRA ------------------- REVISION PETITIONER /APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- SREEDHARAN, S/O. PAYICHI, CHANDANATHIL, KAYANNA AMSOM, MATTANODE DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDNT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, BALUSSERY, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-12-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn P.S.GOPINATHAN, J ---------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.1893 OF 2004 -------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of December, 2011. O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.603/1997 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class – II, Perambra. The Excise Inspector, Balussery Excise Range, who was examined as PW6, prosecuted the Revision Petitioner alleging offence under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act, with a plea that PW1, the Excise Inspector, Peravoor detected out 35 litres of wash prepared for illicit distillation from the main room of the house bearing door No.KP IV/94 of Kayanna Panchayat in the possession of the Revision Petitioner. The learned Magistrate after trial arrived at a conclusion of guilt. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs.25,000/-. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, he preferred Criminal Appeal 203/2000 before the Sessions Judge, Kozhikode. From there it was made over to the Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc - II, Kozhikode. The Addl. Sessions Judge, by Judgment Crl.R.P.NO.1893 OF 2004 2 dated 15-03-2003 concurred with the trial court. Consequently, the conviction and sentence under challenge were confirmed. Assailing the legality correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this Revision Petition is preferred. 2. I have heard Adv.Sri.S.R.Sreejith, the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner and Smt.S.Hyma the learned Govt. Pleader. Perused the judgments impugned as well as the evidence of PWs 1 to 5. 3. PW1 had given evidence that on 21-08-1996, he got reliable information that the appellant was engaged in illicit distillation of arrack at his house. Therefore, after preparing Ext.P1 search memo and forwarding the same to the Magistrate, he proceeded to the house of the revision petitioner along with PW2, the Preventive Officer and party. At about 11.00 AM, when he reached the house bearing door No.KP IV/94 of Kayanna Panchayat, the revision petitioner was present. PW1 searched the Crl.R.P.NO.1893 OF 2004 3 house of the revision petitioner in his presence and found that in the main room, a jerry can with a capacity of 35 litres was hanged on a raft. On examination of the contents in the jerry can, which was marked as MO1, it was convinced that MO1 contained 35 litres of wash prepared for illicit distillation of arrack. After preparing Ext.P2 search list, the wash was seized. The revision petitioner was arrested. Ext.P3 mahazar was prepared. 300 ml was taken from the wash and separately sealed for the purpose of chemical examination. The remaining wash was destroyed. 4. PW2, the Preventive Office would corroborate with the evidence of PW1. Pws 3 and 4, the independent witness had admitted the signature in Ext.P3 mahazar, though, they did not support the prosecution regarding the presence of the revision petitioner. The evidence of PW5 would show that the sample was forwarded to the chemical examiner, who after examination issued Ext.P6 certificate, certifying that the sample contained 6 % by volume of Ethyl Alcohol. Crl.R.P.NO.1893 OF 2004 4 5. Carefully going through the evidence of Pws1 to 5, I find little reason to arrive at a conclusion that either the trial court or the appellate court had committed any error, impropriety or illegality in appreciating the evidence. There is no suggestion that PWs1 and 2 were any way motivated against the revision petitioner to cook up a false case. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently argued that there is no proof to establish the title or ownership of the house, from where the contraband was seized. It is true that no such document is produced. But the evidence of PWs1 and 2 would show that the house was in the possession of the revision petitioner and they verified the ration card. Revision Petitioner was arrested from that house. Though, it is revealed that there were other members in the house, the revision petitioner could not establish anything to show that the contraband seized was exclusively belonging to any other member of the house. Therefore, I find no reason to reject the evidence of PWs1 and 2 regarding the ownership and possession of the house, from Crl.R.P.NO.1893 OF 2004 5 where the contraband was seized. Such being the evidence on record, I find little reason to interfere with the conclusion of guilt and the consequent of conviction. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is 51 years old and sought for some leniency. Having due regard to the nature of the offence, I find little material to conclude that the sentence awarded is anyway harsh. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. In the result, the revision petition fails. Accordingly it is dismissed. The trial court shall see the execution of sentence and report compliance. The revision petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE amk