IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL.A.No. 2167 of 2007()
1. ASOKAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :MANOJ .R.[STATE BRIEF]
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :24/02/2009
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
----------------------------------------------
CRL.A. No.2167 OF 2007
----------------------------------------------
Dated, 24th February, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that
the appellant/accused had already undergone the sentence awarded
against him and he had already been released from jail on completing
the period of imprisonment.
2. The allegation against the appellant is that on 5.4.2004, the
Ist accused was found in possession of one bottle of 750 ml
containing coloured arrack. To substantiate the prosecution case,
PWs 1 to 7 were examined and Exts.P1 to P10 were produced and
marked. Material objects such as M.Os 1 to 5 were identified. PW1
was the then Excise Inspector, Excise Range Office, Kazhakkuttom,
who detected the offence. PW4 was the Preventive Officer who
accompanied PW1. PW5 was the Preventive Officer who arrested
accused No.2 and thereafter PW6 conducted investigation. PW7 was
the Thondy Clerk of the Judicial First class Magistrate’s Court,
Attingal. Seizure, arrest etc. are corroborated by contemporaneous
document namely, Ext. P1 seizure mahazar. Ext.P2 is the arrest
memo. Ext.P3 is the arrest intimation regarding arrest of the Ist
accused. Ext.P4 is the list of property. Ext.P5 is the copy of
CRL.A.2167/07
-:2:-
forwarding note for sending sample for chemical analysis. Ext.P6 is
the crime and occurrence report. Exts.P7 and P8 are the arrest memo
and arrest intimation with respect to the arrest of 2nd accused. Ext.P9
is the certificate of chemical examination. Ext.P10 is the attested copy
of the relevant page of the thondi register maintained in the Court of
the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Attingal. MO-1 is 750 ml. bottle
containing arrack seized from Ist accused and MO2 to 4 are 3 bottles
of 750ml each containing arrack seized from 2nd accused. MO.5 is the
plastic cover in which MO2 to 4 were alleged to have been kept by
accused No.2 at the time of the incident. It was on the basis of the
above evidence, the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant
herein, who is the Ist accused, and also the 2nd accused. Thus,
challenging the above conviction and sentence, Ist accused preferred
this appeal from the jail.
3. As the appeal is preferred from the jail, Adv. Sri Manoj.R
was appointed as State Brief to prosecute the appeal for and on
behalf of the appellant. Thus I have heard the learned counsel
appointed as State Brief and also the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced for and
on behalf of the appellant and also considered the materials and
evidence on record.
CRL.A.2167/07
-:3:-
5. The prosecution has successfully established its case
against the appellant through the evidence of PW1 to PW4,
especially, the seizure of the contraband article and arrest of the
appellant from the spot itself. Seizure was effected on the basis of
Ext.P1 seizure mahazar. Arrest of the appellant is further proved
through the contemporaneous documents such as Ext.P2 arrest
memo and Ext.P3 arrest intimation. After the seizure and arrest of the
appellant, the contraband articles and the accused were brought to
the Excise Range officer, Kazhakkuttom and thereafter, the crime was
registered against accused Nos.1 and 2. Without any further delay the
appellant was produced before the court of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate II, Attingal. The evidence of PW1 corroborated by the
evidence of PW4 regarding the detection and arrest of Ist accused
and also the seizure of the contraband article. On the basis of the
above materials, the trial court found that the prosecution has
succeeded in establishing its case against the accused. On
appreciating the evidence on record and other materials, I am of the
view that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against
the appellant/accused. Therefore, the conviction ordered by the trial
court is confirmed. As the appellant had already undergone the
imprisonment and had already been released on completing the
CRL.A.2167/07
-:4:-
sentence of imprisonment, no interference is called for.
In the result, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is
dismissed.
V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE
kvm/-
CRL.A.2167/07
-:5:-
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
CRL.A. No.2167 OF 2007
Judgment
Dated: 24.2.2009