Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. The prosecution alleges that the fourth accused is the Manager of the godown from where the Junior Scientific Officer attached to the Excise Mobile Testing Laboratory headed by PW4 had collected samples which on chemical analysis found with methyl alcohol. According to the prosecution, the fourth accused was present at the time of collecting samples. There is oral evidence of PW4 and PW5 about the presence of the fourth accused at the time of the search and seizure of samples. PW4 also deposed that the fourth accused received a copy of the mahazar and samples by acknowledging the same in Exhibit P1 mahazar. The fourth accused was examined as DW1. He denied his signature in Exhibit P1. According to DW1, he is not Sundaresan, S/o.Krishnan, Vilayil House, Attingal Village who signed in Exhibit P1 and his name and address is Sundaresan, S/o.Kunjukrishnan, Charuvila Veedu, Thottuvaram, Attingal Village. DW1 produced Ext.D1 passport and D2 identity card issued from the Service Co-operative Bank, Attingal. The trial court, after considering the evidence of DW1 and Exhibits D1 and D2, concluded like this :

"25......But Ext.D1 passport was issued on 17.3.1989 whereas the date of occurrence in the case was on 2.3.1989. So also the Exhibit D2 identity card was issued on 28.5.1997. So it is evident and clear that both Ext.D1 passport and D2 identity card were issued to the fourth accused subsequent to the date occurrence in the case. So after the closing of defence evidence the fourth accused produced the passport (K.640582) dated 6.12.1975 for evidencing that his name and address was Sundaresan, S/o.Kunju Krishnan, Charuvila, Thottavaram, Attingal Village. But the said passport was valid only up to 5.12.1985. So legally speaking the said passport also will not help the defence to establish that on the date of occurrence, i.e., 2.3.1989 the fourth accused was residing in the said address. Whatever it be the only differences noted in the address of the fourth accused given in Exhibit P1 mahazar and Exhibits D1 and D2 are that in the former (Exhibit P1) the word "Kunju" in the name of the father of A4 and "Charu" in his house name are missing. If the above said words "Kunju"

and "Charu" were added to the address of A4 given in Exhibit P1, his address in Exhibit P1, D1 and D2 would have been one and the same.

26. In this context, the evidence of PW4 and PW5 requires consideration. According to them, at the time of collection of samples A4 was present in the godown and when enquired about the difference found in the actual stock of arrack and the stock shown in the register, he (A4) explained that it so happened because the stock kept in the godown of the shops in the 3rd group of Chirayinkeezh Range was also kept in the said godown since the licence granted to the godown of the shops in the 3rd group was cancelled. In the cross-examination PW4 has made it further clear that it was A4 Sundaresan, S/o.Krishnan who told him that he was the Manager of the said godown. The witness added further that it was in his presence that A4 had signed in Ext.P1 mahazar and acknowledged the receipt of the copy of the same and the samples. So PW4 has categorically identified A4 who was present in the court at the time of examination as the person who was present at the time of the collection of samples from the godown who introduced himself as Sundaresan, S/o.Krishnan, Vilayil House, Attingal and the Manager of the godown and acknowledged the receipt of the copy of the mahazar and samples. PW5, the Preventive Officer, who was present along with PW4 has also identified A4 as the person who signed in Ext.P1 mahazar. So even if there is some differences in the name, address and signature of A4 found in Ext.P1 mahazar and the same found on Exts.D1 and D2, the plea of "mistaken identity" raised by the defence will not entitled him to get benefit of doubt in view of his identification by PW4 and PW5 before the court. The question is not where the name, address and signature of A4 found in Ext.P1 is correct or not ; but the question is whether it is A4 who had signed it. PW4 and PW5 has made it clear in unequivocal terms that it was A4 who was present in the court at the time of their examination who had signed in Ext.P1. In this connection it is to be remembered that name, address and signature of a person is not the sole test for identifying the said person, but only one of the means to identify him. In the case on hand, as pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, the fourth accused who is well aware of the penal consequences of mixing noxious substances with the arrack might have wrongly disclosed his identity to PW4 and others so as to escape from the clutches of law. But in my opinion, the plea of "mistaken identity" raised in the memorandum of argument submitted by the counsel for the accused will not legally sustain in view of the identification made by PW4 and PW5 in whose presence A4 had subscribed his signature in Ext.P1 mahazar. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that even the accused have no case that either PW4 or PW5 had any ill will or animosity towards them so as to falsely implicate them in the case.

27. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that even though the name and address of A4 in Ext.D1 passport and D2 identity card is Sundaresan, S/o.Kunjukrishnan, Charuvila House, Thottavaram, Attingal, his name and address in the bail bond executed by him before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Attingal on 19.1.2000 is Sundaresan, S/o.Krishnan, Vilayil House, Chattathinkara, Attingal. It is the very same address (Sundaresan, S/o.Krishnan, Vilayil House, Chattathinkara, Attingal), which is given in the Vakalaths executed by him (A4) and produced before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Attingal also. In the bail bond executed by A4 before the Asst. Sessions Court, Attingal also his name and address is given as Sundaresan, S/o.Krishnan, Vilayil House, Chittattinkara, Attingal. The above facts were confronted to fourth accused (DW1) at the time of his cross examination. But the learned defence counsel made an attempt by putting leading questions in the re-examination to DW1, to establish that it is since summons was served in that address that he happened to execute bonds and vakalaths in the said address. Even if it is so he could have raised the plea of mistaken identity at the time of taking bail or at least at the time of framing charges. But he has not done so. So the explanation given by A4 for executing bail bonds and vakalaths his name given in Ext.P1 mahazar and the charge sheet cannot be swallowed without a pinch of salt. As observed by me earlier, except the word "Kunju" before Krishnan and "Charu" before Vilayil are absent, in all other aspects the name and address of A4 found in Ext.P1 and D1 and D2 are one and the same. The possibility of, as pointed out by the learned prosecutor, A4 giving incorrect address to PW4 by avoiding the words "Kunju" and "Charu" from his address also cannot be ruled out. So in view of the identification made by PW4 and PW5 and the attending facts and circumstances in the case, I have no doubt in holding that it was A4 who had signed in Ext.P1 mahazar and received its copy and the samples in his capacity as Manager of the godown as stated in the prosecution case. If so no further elaboration is necessary to hold that A4 is also liable and responsible for mixing methyl alcohol in the arrack stored in the godown of shop No.5, 6 and 7 (Group No.II), Chirayinkeezh Excise Range at Pandakasala and therefore committed punishable offences under Sections 57A(1) and (3) of the Abkari Act."