JUDGMENT P.S. Gopinathan, J. 1. Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.73/97 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nadapuram. He was prosecuted by the Excise Inspector, Nadapuram Excise Range, who was examined as PW2, accusing offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and Rule 9 of the Foreign Liquor Rules. It was alleged that, on 22.1.1997, while moving on patrol duty, PW2 got information that foreign liquor was being transported from Pondichery to Kerala. He made preparation for search of the vehicles passing through. At 8.25a.m., at Perode -Parakadavu junction, he stopped the stage carriage bus bearing Reg. No.KL-13/9777 and made a thorough search. The revision petitioner was found sitting on the rear seat with a packet in his hand. On inspection it was found that the packet contained three bottles, each containing 375mls, and 6 bottles, each containing 180mls, of Gemini Brandy. He tested the nature of the liquid by smell and taste and satisfied that it was Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) being transported from Pallur. He arrested the revision petitioner and seized the packet with the liquor bottles. A mahazar, which was marked as Ext.P1 was prepared. PWs 3 and 4, the driver and conductor of the bus, are attestors to Ext.P1. He took samples from the bottles. Returning to the office, he registered a case for which Ext.P3 occurrence report was prepared. The samples taken were sent for analysis through court and obtained Ext.P4 certificate wherein, it is certified that the samples contained 43% and 42.78% by volume of ethyl alcohol. He completed the investigation and filed the complaint before the trial court. 2. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty. Therefore, he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 4 were examined. Exts.P1 to P4 and MO1 series were marked. After closing the evidence for the prosecution, the revision petitioner was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the incriminating evidence and advanced a plea of innocence. No defence evidence was let in. The learned Magistrate, on appraisal of the evidence, arrived at a finding of guilty. Consequently, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.25,000/-with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. 3. No defence evidence was let in. The learned Magistrate, on appraisal of the evidence, arrived at a finding of guilty. Consequently, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.25,000/-with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. 3. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner preferred Crl.A.No.67/2000 before the Sessions Judge, Kozhikode. The Additional Sessions Judge, Vadakara, to whom the appeal was made over, by the impugned judgment dated 13.12.2002, while confirming the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this Revision Petition is preferred. 4. I have heard Sri.Arun Mathew Vadakan, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Smt.Sareena George, the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner took me through the judgment impugned as well as the evidence on record. 5. In support of the seizure, PW1, the Excise Guard and PW2, the Excise Inspector, had given evidence. PWs 3 and 4, who are attestors, though turned hostile, admitted their signatures in Ext.P1. PW2 would depose that the liquor seized was transported from Pallur. But there is no whisper in his evidence that Pallur is beyond the State of Kerala or within Mahe. Critically going through the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, I find nothing to conclude that PW2 had made any investigation as to whether the liquor seized were transported/imported from Mahe or not. No investigation was also made as to whether the revision petitioner acquired the same from a lawful outlet in the State or not. It is pertinent to note that the prosecution has no case that liquor seized was illicitly manufactured by the revision petitioner or that the petitioner had any liquor business or that the liquor seized was acquired for sale. No antecedent of the revision petitioner was probed. The total quantity that was seized would come to 2.20 litres. It is fairly conceded by the learned Government Pleader that as per S.R.O.No.89/69 dated 19.2.1969, which was prevailing on the date of the seizure, the revision petitioner is entitled to possess 4.5 litres of IMFL at a time. No antecedent of the revision petitioner was probed. The total quantity that was seized would come to 2.20 litres. It is fairly conceded by the learned Government Pleader that as per S.R.O.No.89/69 dated 19.2.1969, which was prevailing on the date of the seizure, the revision petitioner is entitled to possess 4.5 litres of IMFL at a time. Since there is nothing on record to show that the liquor seized was either transported/imported from outside the State or that it was obtained from an outlet which is beyond the State of Kerala, the revision petitioner cannot be found fault with for having committed the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. 6. I don't omit to note that PW2 has got a case that the bottles seized didn't contain the seal of the Beverages Corporation of the State. There is nothing in the evidence of PW2 that all the liquor sold in the State is with the seal of the State Beverages Corporation. In the above circumstance, for the reason that there was no seal of the State Beverages Corporation, it cannot be concluded that the liquor was transported/imported from outside the State or that it was not acquired from a licenced outlet. Such being the materials on record, it has to be concluded that the revision petitioner had been possessing IMFL within the permissible quantity as per S.R.O. mentioned above. No offence is made out. The conviction and sentence under challenge are not sustainable. 7. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. While setting aside the conviction and sentence under challenge, the revision petitioner would stand acquitted and set at liberty. The bail bond executed by him shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any, remitted shall be refunded to him.