Challenge in this appeal is against the conviction of the accused in Sessions Case No.579/2002 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc I), Alappuzha, whereby the accused was convicted for an offence under Section 8(1) of the Abkari Act.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the sole appellant in the case expired. This fact was verified by the learned Public Prosecutor through the Investigating Officer and got information that on 26-06-2007 the appellant died. However, since the sentence awarded by the court below in this case is a composite one involving imprisonment and fine, I have carefully perused the records.
4. The prosecution case in short is that on 19-02-1998 at about 7.00 a.m., the Excise Circle Inspector attached to Excise Enforcement and Anti-Narcotic Special Squad, Alappuzha and party conducted a raid in the house of the deceased appellant. In the course of search, they could find out a jerry can of 3 litre capacity containing illicit arrack. About 1.5 litres of arrack was kept by the accused in the kitchen. After completing all the formalities, the deceased appellant was arrested and later charge was filed against her. Court below examined six witnesses and marked seven documents on the side of the prosecution. MO1 is the jerry can. There was no defence evidence. From the impugned judgment, it is seen that the court below mainly placed reliance on the testimony of PW1 the Preventive Officer, PW2 the Excise Inspector and PW5 the Circle Inspector of the Excise Department. These witnesses deposed that the team of Excise Officers led by PW5 detected the offence. On 19-02-1998, they were on patrol duty. When they reached near Thripperunthura temple at Eramathur muri in Mavelikara Taluk, PW5 received a credible information that the deceased appellant was dealing with illicit arrack at her house. On the basis of that information, the Excise Officers went to house of the deceased appellant and found out a can of 1.5 litres of illicit arrack kept in her kitchen. These witnesses were searchingly cross examined. The contention raised by the deceased appellant was that she had no connection with the contraband and there were other occupants in the house. On appreciating the evidence, the court below found that she was handling the contraband article. In spite of raising an objection regarding ownership of the house, the court below was of the view that on the basis of trustworthy evidence adduced by the prosecution, it was to be held that the deceased appellant dealt with illicit arrack. Therefore, the court below convicted the appellant.
5. The material documents like Ext.P1 mahazar, Ext.P2 occurrence report and Ext.P3 thondi list were produced before the court on the date of detection itself. There is no delay affecting the credibility of the prosecution case. That apart, the search list and arrest memo also reinforce the prosecution case. Ext.P7 chemical analysis report shows that liquor kept by the deceased appellant tested positive for ethyl alcohol on analysis. On re-appreciation of evidence, I find no reason to hold that the conviction is either illegal or improper. Hence, I confirm it.
6. As the appellant expired pending this appeal, the imprisonment part of the sentence has become unworkable. However, fine imposed on the deceased appellant will survive. I find that the fine imposed on the appellant is legally justifiable.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed as it is devoid of any merit.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
amk Sd/- A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
//True copy// P.A to Judge