JUDGMENT : P. UBAID, J. 1. The appellant herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Section 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act in S.C. No. 547/2011 of the Court of Session, Ernakulam. 2. The prosecution case is that at about 10.45 a.m. on 21.11.2010 at a plantain garden at Nellimattom, the accused was found possessing and selling Indian made Foreign Liquor. The offence was detected by the Sub Inspector of Police, Oonnukal during his usual patrol duty, and he happened to make the detection on the basis of some secret information. The Police party led by the Sub Inspector saw the accused pouring Indian Made Foreign Liquor in two glasses and selling it to two persons. On seeing the police party, those two persons ran off and escaped by leaving the glasses there. The Sub Inspector arrested the accused on the spot and seized the bottles containing liquor, including some sealed bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. He seized one liquor bottle of 1.5 litres capacity, three other sealed bottles of 1 litre capacity and another 375 ml bottle. All these liquor bottles were seized as per mahazar by the Sub Inspector. Two samples of 250 ml each were taken from the liquor bottle of 1.5 litres capacity and also one of the sealed bottles of one litre capacity. All the three sealed bottles had identical labels of the same company. The other 375 ml bottle containing liquor was also taken as sample. All the sample bottles were well packed and sealed according to law, and the other bottles were also well packed and sealed at the spot of detection itself. On the basis of the arrest and seizure, the Sub Inspector registered a crime against the accused under Section 55(a) and (i) of the Act. The Sub Inspector himself investigated the case and submitted final report in court under Section 55(a) and (i) of the Kerala Abkari Act. After complying with the procedural formalities, the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothamangalam committed the case to the Court of Session, from where it was made over to the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) I, Ernakulam for trial and disposal. 3. The accused appeared before the trial court and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Section 55(a) and (i) of the Kerala Abkari Act. 3. The accused appeared before the trial court and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Section 55(a) and (i) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The prosecution examined six witnesses including the Detecting Officer and proved Exts. P1 to P10 documents. The MO1 to MO7 properties were also identified during trial. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied the incriminating circumstances and projected a defence that the case was falsely foisted against him by the Police. However, the accused did not adduce any evidence in defence. 4. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused not guilty under Section 55 (a) of the Kerala Abkari Act, and accordingly acquitted him of the said offence, but the accused was found guilty under Section 55 (i) of the Kerala Abkari Act. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) by judgment dated 31.3.2012. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the accused has come up in appeal. 5. When this appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is absolutely no proper and legal evidence in this case to prove physical possession of the contraband articles by the accused. 6. Of the six witnesses examined by the prosecution in the trial court, PW-1 is the Sub Inspector, who detected the offence and PW-6 is the Additional Sub Inspector who assisted the Sub Inspector in the process of detection. PW-2 and PW-3 are the independent witnesses, but they turned hostile. However, these two witnesses admitted their signature in the seizure mahazar. They have no satisfactory explanation as to how they happened to attest the Ext.P1 seizure mahazar. PW-4 is the Village Officer who prepared the Ext.P10 scene plan and PW-5 is the brother of the owner of the plantain garden where the offence was detected. The main evidence is that of PW-1 and PW-6. 7. Of course, the whole process in this case was done by the Sub Inspector. He detected the offence, he investigated the case, and he also submitted final report in court. The main evidence is that of PW-1 and PW-6. 7. Of course, the whole process in this case was done by the Sub Inspector. He detected the offence, he investigated the case, and he also submitted final report in court. It is well settled that in cases of such one man show, the accused will get the benefit by way of acquittal only in cases where the one man show made by the Detecting Officer has caused some sort of prejudice to the accused. In this case, I find no such situation. The detecting officer and also the accompanying officer have given clear evidence regarding the detection formalities including the collection of samples. The properties were produced without any delay in court along with a forwarding note, and the forwarding note contains the specimen seal affixed on the properties including the sample bottles. 8. Of course, mere possession of Indian made Foreign Liquor beyond permitted quantity will not come under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act. That is why the court below probably found the accused not guilty under the said Section. However, conviction was made on the basis of clear evidence proving sale of liquor by the accused. On this important aspect, there is the evidence of PW-1 and PW-6. The two witnesses are definite and consistent that they had seen the accused selling liquor to two persons, but those two persons ran off and escaped on seeing the Police party. The glasses in which liquor was supplied to them by the accused were also seized by the Police as per the mahazar. The MO5 series are those glasses. Of course, the glasses do not bear any label containing the signature of the witnesses or the detecting officer. But the other contraband articles bear labels containing the signature of the detecting officer and the witnesses. MO1 was identified as the liquor bottle of 1.5 litre capacity from which liquor was sold to the persons, who ran off and escaped. MO2 and MO3 are the other sealed bottles seized as per the mahazar. Sample was collected by the Sub Inspector from the MO1 bottle and also from one of the other sealed bottles having identical labels. The Ext.P7 report of analysis shows that on analysis at the laboratory Ethyl Alcohol was detected in all the sample bottles. MO2 and MO3 are the other sealed bottles seized as per the mahazar. Sample was collected by the Sub Inspector from the MO1 bottle and also from one of the other sealed bottles having identical labels. The Ext.P7 report of analysis shows that on analysis at the laboratory Ethyl Alcohol was detected in all the sample bottles. The report will show that the percentage of Ethyl Alcohol detected in three of the samples was much below the prescribed quantity. Probably only the samples collected from sealed bottles were detected as containing 42.20 percentage by volume of Ethyl Alcohol. There is reason to believe that the liquor in the other bottles was probably diluted by the accused, or that it was illicit liquor. What is practically and legally proved is only sale of liquor by the accused. On this aspect, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-6 is very definite and consistent. It stands proved by the Ext.P7 document that the liquid collected by the Sub Inspector from the hands of the accused was identified as coloured liquor. Both the witnesses are definite that they had seen the accused selling liquor to two persons. Of course, it is true that the Detecting Officer has not recorded in Ext.P1 seizure mahazar that the MO5 glasses contained traces of liquor. This is not very important when the other evidence is convincing and definite, that the Police party had in fact seen the accused selling liquor to two persons or pouring liquor to the glasses and passing it to the other persons. When such aspects proving sale are definite, it is of little consequence that the glasses do not carry labels, or that the officer has not specified in the mahazar that the glasses were found containing traces of liquor. The two independent witnesses turned hostile during trial. There is reason to believe that they had witnessed the fact of seizure, but during trial they turned hostile to help the accused. Anyway, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-6 is convincing and there is no reason to disbelieve these witnesses or to reject their evidence. Thus, I find that a case under Section 55 (i) of the Kerala Abkari Act stands well proved. 9. Now the question of sentence. Of course, the quantity of liquor is not very huge in this case. Anyway, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-6 is convincing and there is no reason to disbelieve these witnesses or to reject their evidence. Thus, I find that a case under Section 55 (i) of the Kerala Abkari Act stands well proved. 9. Now the question of sentence. Of course, the quantity of liquor is not very huge in this case. Though unauthorised possession of illicit liquor is alleged, the finding of the court below is only regarding sale of liquor punishable under Section 55 (i) of the Kerala Abkari Act. No other previous case of similar nature is seen reported against him. He was at his prime age at the time of detection. The detection was made in 2010 and now we are in 2017. On a consideration of all the relevant aspects, I find that simple imprisonment for six months will be the adequate and reasonable sentence in this case. In the result, the conviction against the appellant under Section 55 (i) of the Kerala Abkari Act in S.C. No. 547/2011 of the court below is confirmed and the appeal is accordingly disposed of. However, the jail sentence imposed by the court below will stand reduced and modified to simple imprisonment for six months. The fine sentence imposed by the court below is maintained, but the default sentence will stand reduced to simple imprisonment for two months. The appellant is entitled for the benefit of set off as already ordered by the trial court.