ORDER : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No. 941 of 2003, dated 06.08.2009, whereby the High Court has upheld the order of conviction and modified the sentence passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 57 of 2002, dated 30.04.2003. 2. The prosecution's case is as follows: On 14.05.2000, the appellant, while exiting the Fortkochi-Vyppin ferry jetty, was apprehended by a police patrol led by the Circle Inspector of Police, Njarakkal Police Station (PW-4) and, on a search being made, a carton containing 12 bottles of 750 ml each of Indian-made foreign liquor were found in his possession. The said contraband was seized by PW-4 under a Mahazar and the appellant was arrested. Samples were taken from each of the 12 bottles and forwarded to the Sub-inspector of Police, Njarakkal Police Station (PW-5) for further action. A case was registered against the appellant as Crime No. 168 of 2000. 3. Thereafter, on the appellant appearing before the Trial Court, charges were framed against him for the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, 1077 (for short, "the Act"). On the appellant pleading not guilty, the case was committed to trial. 4. The prosecution examined six witnesses and produced nine documents and three material objects, while no evidence was adduced by the defense. The appellant's statement was recorded under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") wherein he stated that he had been falsely implicated. 5. The Trial Court considered the evidence on record as also the arguments of the parties and observed that though PW-1, the independent witness, had turned hostile, the fact that the said 12 bottles of Indian-made foreign liquor were seized from a place in the Vyppin boat jetty had been substantiated by his testimony. 6. The Court further rejected the appellant's contention that the prosecution's case was false and observed that there was no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and that the same could not be disregarded due to minor contradictions. 6. The Court further rejected the appellant's contention that the prosecution's case was false and observed that there was no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and that the same could not be disregarded due to minor contradictions. Therefore, the Trial Court concluded that the prosecution had been able to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and, by judgment and order dated 30.04.2003, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 55(a) of the Act and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. 7. Aggrieved by the order of said conviction and sentence, the appellant approached the High Court by filing a Criminal Appeal on the grounds, inter alia, that the independent witness examined by the prosecution had turned hostile and that there had been an inordinate delay by the prosecution in producing the seized samples before the Trial Court. 8. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and observed that the fact that the independent witness had turned hostile would not, in and of itself, discredit the prosecution's case and that the testimonies of PWs 1 and 4 did not suffer from any infirmity and were reliable. The Court further observed that the proper procedure had been adhered to in the handling of the seized samples and the delay in producing the same before the Trial Court had not materially prejudiced the appellant in any manner. Therefore, by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court upheld the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court. However, in light of the quantity of contraband involved, the appellant's age and the fact that his family was dependant on him, the High Court modified the sentence imposed on the appellant to simple imprisonment for a period of three months with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. 9. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court, the appellant is before us in this appeal. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution's case is false and mala fide and the appellant has been falsely implicated. 9. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court, the appellant is before us in this appeal. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution's case is false and mala fide and the appellant has been falsely implicated. She would further submit that the prosecution has failed to examine any independent witnesses and that the necessary and proper procedure, as required by the provisions of the Abkari Act, has not been followed. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State would support the judgment and order of the High Court. 12. After carefully perusing the material on record, including the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below, the appellant's case fails to convince us. The Courts below have made concurrent findings that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are credible and conclusively establish the appellant's guilt and we see no reason to interfere with the same. 13. On the question of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the sentence imposed on the appellant ought to be reduced. However, given the seriousness of the offence committed by the appellant, we find that the sentence imposed on the appellant cannot be further reduced. 14. In light of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment and order passed by the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever and does not require our interference. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 16. The appellant is directed to be taken into custody forthwith to serve the remaining period of his sentence. Ordered accordingly.