Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The accused in SC No.163/2001 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-1), Thodupuzha is the appellant herein. The appellant was charge sheeted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Santhanpara Police Station in Crime 158/1999 of Santhanpara Police Station under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act.

2. The case of the prosecution in nut shell was that on 23.7.1999, at about 6.20 pm, the accused was found to be in possession of 31 bottles of 150 ml. New Master Brandy and 5 bottles of 375 ml. each Honey blend pure brandy in a provision shop at Puppara estate in violation of the provisions of the Abkari Act for the purpose of sale in violation of the provisions of the Abkari Act and thereby  he had committed offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act.

9. PWs 1 to 3 were the independent witnesses to the seizure. PW1 though admitted the signature in Ext.P1, denied having seen the search or seizure or arrest of the accused. PWs 1 to 3 have admitted that they  know the accused. But they have denied having seen the seizure or arrest. So it is clear from this that they are now trying to help the accused and that was the reason why they are not supporting the case of the prosecution. Then the evidence of PW5 the detecting officer alone is there to prove the search, seizure and arrest. He had categorically stated that he got information and immediately, he sent Ext.P1 search memo and went to the shop and found it was closed. Thereafter he opened the same and found the accused sitting inside the shop and when he examined the shop by opening the table by using the key produced by the accused, he found a sack containing 31 bottles of 180 ml. brandy and 5 bottles of 370 ml.each of brandy of different brand. Thereafter he took two samples from each category and sealed the same and he had sealed the other bottles also and seized the same as per Ext.P1 mahazar. Though he was cross examined at length, nothing was brought out to discredit his evidence on this aspect. It is true that no document  has been produced by the prosecution to prove that the accused was in possession of that building from where the alleged articles were seized. But however, when he was red handedly caught from the shop and arrested from the shop along with the alleged contraband articles non- proving of the ownership of the building is not material. So it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has proved that sack with MO1 series of bottles alleged to be containing foreign liquor was seized from the possession of the accused.