Sahadevan vs State Of Kerala on 3 February, 2014
Ext.P1 mahazar shows that two witnesses have signed on it. First witness
is PW3. He turned hostile to prosecution. Second witness in Ext.P1 is a
Police Constable. Learned counsel contended that there is a clear
violation of the provisions in Section 36 of the Act as neither of the
witnesses shall be an Officer in the Abkari or Police Department. In this
case, out of two witnesses, one is a Police Officer. A decision rendered
by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Rajamani v. State of Kerala
(2012 (2) KLD 201) would show that absence of independent witnesses to
the seizure mahazar will not vitiate the trial if materials brought on record
justify conviction. Even if this cannot be taken as a fatal aspect to discard
Crl. Appeal No.1274/2005 4
the prosecution case, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that
the recitals in Ext.P1 coupled with the testimony of PWs 1 and 2 will not
make out an offence under Section 55(a) of the Act.