IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2010 / 12TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 668 of 2002() ----------------------------- CRA.248/1999 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE CC.426/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VADAKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- UNNI @ UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.CHOYI, KONDERAM KADAVATHU, PARAPPOOR AMSOM, IRINGALLOOR DESOM, THIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY SRI.P.KUMARANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINAT ------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, VADAKARA EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE, VADAKARA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.668 of 2002 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 4th October, 2010. O R D E R This revision arises from the conviction and sentence passed against revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default to undergo Simple imprisonment for two months, under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The trial court convicted and sentenced the revision petitioner and those were confirmed in appeal. 2. According to prosecution, on 19.12.1995, at about 2.45 p.m., PW1, the Excise Inspector and party checked a bus, which was driven by PW3 and the accused was found sitting in the bus with a cardboard box on his lap. On being suspicious, a search was conducted and it was found to contain 24 bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, in violation of Rule 9 of Foreign Liquor Rules. The accused was arrested from the spot and articles were seized under Ext.P1 mahazar. Samples were also drawn and on examination, it was found to be liquor. 3. On an analysis of the evidence adduced in this case, the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 5, Exts.P1 to P3 and MO.I to MO.III, the trial court and the appellate court concurred with the Crl.R.P. No.668/02 2 findings that the revision petitioner was found in possession of the contraband article, in violation of the provisions of the Act and he was found guilty of the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. 4. The revision petitioner challenges the concurrent findings of fact. The court below relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 to hold that an incident has happened, as alleged. PWs.1 and 2 are the official witnesses. PW1 is the detecting officer and PW2 is the Preventive Officer, who witnessed the incident. To support the evidence of these official witnesses, PWs.3 and 4, who are the bus conductor and driver were examined. PW3, the bus driver was declared hostile, but PW4 was not declared as hostile. Both of them admitted the signature in Ext.P1. Both of them stated that Ext.P1 was signed in connection with the seizure of foreign liquor. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the courts have not considered whether the facts are proved, as required in a criminal prosecution. It is also submitted that the accused had denied the incident and he has a case that the article was found on the seat of the bus and a Crl.R.P. No.668/02 3 false case is foisted against him. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the court ought not to have placed reliance upon the evidence of official witnesses. 6. On going through the records and judgment, I do not think that the appellate court has failed to consider the matter in the right perspective. There is no ground to hold that the court committed any error in placing reliance on the evidence of official witnesses. It is well settled that merely because witnesses are official witnesses, their evidence cannot be rejected on that sole ground. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 also corroborates each other and the evidence of PW3 and PW4 also, to certain extent, supports their evidence. 7. The petitioner could not explain his possession of the contraband articles and hence, conviction was entered for transporting liquor. I find absolutely no reason to interfere either with the conviction or with the sentence. This Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs