Judgment : 1. The accused in Sessions Case No.11/2004 of the III Additional Sessions Judge (ADHOC-I), Thrissur, who stands convicted under Section 55(a2013 (3) KLT (SN) (C.No.) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, has come up in appeal. 2. The prosecution case is that on 21.07.1999 at 6.00 p.m, the appellant was found transporting four bottles, each containing 750 ml of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, without any licence and thereby committed the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. The appellant was charge sheeted by the Excise Inspector, Pazhayannur Excise Range. 3. The matter was taken cognizance of by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Wadakkancherry, as CP.25/2003 and the same was committed to the Court of Sessions, Thrissur. 4. On the side of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 7 were examined, Exts.P1 to P11 were marked and MOs.1 & 2 were identified. 5. The one and only point argued by the learned counsel for the appellant is that based on the repeated precedents of this Court, the possession of such excess quantity of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, purchased from the Kerala State Beverages Corporation cannot constitute an offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, and at the most it can constitute the offence under Section 63 of the Abkari Act. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Even from Ext.P1 seizure mahazar, it is evident that the said four bottles each containing 750 ml of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, contained label declarations, which clearly reveal that the same were purchased from the Kerala State Beverages Corporation. The sticker as well as the numbers were also mentioned in Ext.P1. There is no dispute or challenge to the fact that the said four bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor were purchased from the outlet of the Kerala State Beverages Corporation. 7. During the period in question, the maximum permissible quantity which a person could possess was 1.5 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. There is no dispute or challenge to the fact that the said four bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor were purchased from the outlet of the Kerala State Beverages Corporation. 7. During the period in question, the maximum permissible quantity which a person could possess was 1.5 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Sabu v. State of Kerala reported in 2003 (2) KLT 173 held that if the liquor was purchased from the Kerala State Beverages Corporation for own consumption, there is no question of illegal import or transport of illicit liquor within the contemplation of Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. It was also held therein that if the offence is only possession of excess quantity of liquor than what is permissible under law, if purchased legally from the Kerala State Beverages Corporation, it may, at the maximum, attract Section 63 of the Abkari Act. The said decision was subsequently approved in Mohan v. State of Kerala reported in 2007 (1) KLT 845 . 8. It has to be taken note of the fact that as per two subsequent notifications issued as SRO 725/2003 dated 02.08.2003 and G.O(P) No.97/2012/TD dated 08.06.2012, the maximum quantity of Indian Made Foreign Liquor that can be possessed by a person at a time, has been fixed as three litres. It is true that during the period of incident in this case, the maximum quantity that could be possessed was 1.5 litres. It seems that, the stringent position has been watered down in the course of time and as per the present notification, the maximum quantity that can be possessed by a person at present is three litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. It has to be noted that in this particular case also, the appellant had possessed only three litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, that too purchased by him from the outlet of the Kerala State Beverages Corporation. There were no signs of any attempt for sales of the same by the appellant. Applying by the proceedings noted above, I am satisfied that the offence will come within the purview of Section 63 of the Abkari Act instead of Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. 9. There were no signs of any attempt for sales of the same by the appellant. Applying by the proceedings noted above, I am satisfied that the offence will come within the purview of Section 63 of the Abkari Act instead of Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. 9. From the discussions made above, I am of the view that the conviction passed by the court below under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act has to be modified as conviction under Section 63 of the Abkari Act. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the appellant had undergone detention in custody for a period of two weeks during the investigation, inquiry and trial of this case. Considering the quantity of contraband involved in this case and the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that a sentence of imprisonment for the period, which he already undergone in custody and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for two months, will meet the ends of justice in this case. 10. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part by modifying the conviction as one under Section 63 of the Abkari Act and by sentencing the appellant to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him in custody in connection with the investigation, inquiry and trial of this case, and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.