ORDER : M.B. SNEHALATHA, J. Revision petitioner/accused assails the concurrent finding of conviction and order of sentence against him for the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act , 1077 for short ‘ Abkari Act ) in S.C. No.880/2015 of Assistant Sessions Court, Palakkad and in Crl.A No.89/2017 of Court of Sessions, Palakkad. 2. In short, the prosecution case is that on 12.9.2014 at around 5.30 pm at the public road near Kannannur-Thottupalam culvert in Palakkad-Alathur National Highway, the accused was found illegally transporting 248 litres of spirit in a mini lorry bearing registration No.KL-42-5280 and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act . 3. The offence was detected by the Excise Inspector, Kuzhalmannam Excise Range and Excise Inspector of Excise Intelligence and Investigation Bureau, Palakkad, during the vehicle checking conjointly done by them on 12.9.2014 at Kannannur- Thottupalam Public road in Palakkad-Alathur National Highway. After investigation, final report was filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act . 4. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and faced trial. To substantiate the prosecution case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 5 and marked Exts.P1 to P24 and MO1 series. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. He denied those incriminating circumstances and maintained that he is innocent. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused. 5. On an appreciation of the evidence before it and after hearing both sides, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Palakkad found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C was also allowed. 6. In appeal filed by the accused as Crl.A No.89/2017, the Sessions Court, Palakkad confirmed the conviction and sentence against the accused, which is assailed in this revision petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 8. Set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C was also allowed. 6. In appeal filed by the accused as Crl.A No.89/2017, the Sessions Court, Palakkad confirmed the conviction and sentence against the accused, which is assailed in this revision petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the trial court and the appellate court have not analysed the evidence in its correct perspective; that the prosecution failed to establish the seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused; that there is delay in producing the samples of the alleged contraband before the court and there is further delay in producing the samples before the Chemical Analysis Laboratory and thus there is no link evidence to connect the accused with the crime. Further, it was contended that the inventory was not prepared by the authorized officer. Yet another argument put forward by the learned counsel for the accused was that even if seizure of contraband from the vehicle driven by the accused stands proved, there is no evidence to show that the accused was in conscious possession of the said contraband seized from the vehicle. 9. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that neither there was any delay in producing the samples before the court nor there was any delay in producing the samples before the Chemical Analysis Laboratory. Further, it was pointed out that the inventory was prepared by the authorized officer, and the argument to the contrary is unsustainable. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that accused was found transporting the contraband spirit in the mini lorry driven by him and there was no other person in the said lorry; that the accused was transporting the contraband with the conscious knowledge of what he was doing and therefore the argument that he was not in conscious possession of the contraband is untenable. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the findings of conviction and sentence and urged that there are no reasons at all to interfere with the conviction and sentence. 10. In view of the rival contentions, the point for consideration in this revision petition is whether the conviction and sentence against the accused for the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act warrant any interference by this Court. 11. PW1 was the Excise Inspector, Kuzhalmannam Excise Range. 10. In view of the rival contentions, the point for consideration in this revision petition is whether the conviction and sentence against the accused for the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act warrant any interference by this Court. 11. PW1 was the Excise Inspector, Kuzhalmannam Excise Range. PW2 was the Excise Inspector of Excise Intelligence and Investigation Bureau, Palakkad. According to them, on 12.9.2014, acting on a tip-off received from the Palakkad Intelligence Bureau, they intercepted a mini lorry bearing registration No.KL-42-5280 which was driven by the accused near Kannannur-Thottupalam culvert in Palakkad-Alathur National Highway and checked the said vehicle, in the presence of independent witnesses. Upon inspection of the said vehicle, it was seen that the diesel tank of the said vehicle was extraordinarily large in size. Two lids were seen on the diesel tank and when one of the lids was opened, a severe smell of spirit emanated from it and upon examination of the liquid found in the said secret chamber, the same was found to be spirit. There was another secret chamber on the platform of the lorry, which also contained spirit. According to PW1 and PW2, altogether 248 liters of spirit were found in the secret chambers of the said lorry. PW1 arrested the accused. Ext.P1 is the arrest memo. The versions of PW1 and PW2 would further reveal that 300 ml of spirit from each secret chambers were taken in two separate bottles as samples; that both samples were duly labelled and sealed. After taking the samples the lorry containing residue spirit was taken to the Excise Range Office, Kuzhalmannam and the residue spirit was transferred into eight plastic cans of 35 liters capacity. Ext.P2 is the seizure mahazar contemporaneously prepared by PW1. PW1 and PW2 have categorically testified about the seizure of contraband spirit from the possession of the accused, which he was found transporting in the mini lorry bearing registration No.KL-42-5280 and the drawing of sample from the contraband. Accused was caught red-handed. In Ext.P2, PW1 has clearly depicted the official acts performed by the Excise Officials at the scene of occurrence and also at the Excise Range Office. Ext.P4 is the crime and occurrence report. Accused was caught red-handed. In Ext.P2, PW1 has clearly depicted the official acts performed by the Excise Officials at the scene of occurrence and also at the Excise Range Office. Ext.P4 is the crime and occurrence report. The versions of PW1 and PW2 receive further corroboration from the versions of PW3 and PW4 who have testified that they witnessed the seizure of spirit from a lorry by the Excise officials at Kannannur-Thottupalam National Highway on a day at around 5 pm. PW3 who was a witness to Ext.P2 seizure mahazar testified that he had witnessed the seizure of spirit by the Excise Officials at Kannannur- Thottupalam culvert in Palakkad-Alathur National Highway from a lorry at around 5 pm. He has admitted his signature in Ext.P2 seizure mahazar and Ext.P1 arrest memo. He would admit that he put his signature in Ext.P1 and P2 at the place of incident. PW4 has also testified that he witnessed the seizure of spirit by the Excise officials at Kannannur-Thottupalam from a lorry. He has also admitted and identified his signature in Ext.P2 seizure mahazar and Ext.P1 arrest memo. PW4 has further testified that he had also proceeded to the Excise Range Office, Kuzhalmannam. According to him, he had signed in Ext.P2 seizure mahazar initially at the spot of occurrence and also after reaching the Excise Range Office. Thus, the evidence of PW3 and PW4 corroborates the versions of PW1 and PW2. Though PW3 and PW4 have not testified that they saw the accused at the spot, their versions that they witnessed the seizure of spirit by the excise officials from the lorry at Kannannur-Thottupalam Highway at around 5 pm on the date of incident and their version that they put their signature in Ext.P2 seizure mahazar and Ext.P1 arrest memo cannot be thrown away merely for the reason that they did not speak about the presence of the accused at the spot. The versions of PW1 and PW2, namely the Exicse Officials who detected the crime, are unblemished and free from infirmities and there is no reason to disbelieve the versions of PW1 and PW2 that acting on a tip off on 12.9.2014 at Kannannur-Thottupalam National Highway when they intercepted and checked the mini lorry bearing registration No.KL-42-5280 driven by the accused, 248 liters of spirit was found kept in the secret chambers of the said lorry. 12. 12. PW1 has categorically testified that he produced the contraband spirit before the Deputy Excise Commissioner for disposal as provided under Section 53A of the Abkari Act . Ext.P11 is the inventory prepared by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Palakkad. In Ext.P11, it has been specifically mentioned that eight cans containing 31 liters of spirit each were produced before the Deputy Commissioner of Excise. Ext.P12 is the certificate of inventory prepared by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Palakkad and the learned Magistrate has certified that 8 cans containing 31 liters of spirit each tally with the inventory list prepared by the authorised officer and photographs of the cans were taken in his presence. Ext.P8 is the photographs and Ext.P14 is the CD. 13. The offence was detected on 12.9.2014 at 5.30 pm. Ext.P5 property list would show that the samples were produced at the residence of the learned Magistrate on 13.9.2014 at 1 pm. Thus, there was no delay at all in producing the sample before the learned Magistrate and there is no merit in the contention put forward by the accused that there was a delay in producing the sample before the court. Ext.P8 is a copy of the forwarding note for sending the sample for chemical analysis. In Ext.P8, the sample seal has been affixed. Ext.P2 seizure mahazar also contains the very same sample seal. PW5 was the investigating officer. Ext.P10 would show that the samples were produced before the Chemical Analysis Laboratory, Kakkanad, Ernakulam, on 21.10.2014 ie on the very next day on which it was entrusted to the Civil Excise Officer and there was no delay in producing the sample before the Chemical Analysis Laboratory. In Ext.P10 chemical analysis report, it has been specifically mentioned that seals on the samples were intact and found tallied with the sample seals provided. In Ext.P10 report, it is opined that Ethyl Alcohol was detected in both samples and sample labelled as S1 contained 95.58 per cent by volume of Ethyl alcohol and sample labelled as S2 contained 95.60 per cent by volume of Ethyl Alcohol and both the samples were identified to be rectified spirit. Thus, the versions of PW1 and PW2 that the contraband seized from the mini lorry driven by the accused was spirit receive support from scientific evidence as well. 14. Thus, the versions of PW1 and PW2 that the contraband seized from the mini lorry driven by the accused was spirit receive support from scientific evidence as well. 14. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused is that the accused was not the RC owner of the mini lorry bearing registration No.KL-42-5280 and therefore, even if the spirit was found in the secret chambers of the said lorry, accused cannot be held liable, is untenable. It is true that the registration certificate of the said lorry stands in the name of one Mr.Faisal. But it stands proved that at the time of interception of the said lorry by the excise officials, accused was driving the said vehicle and there was no other person in the vehicle other than the accused. Therefore, the contention that even if any contraband was seized from the said mini lorry, accused cannot be held liable, is untenable. 15. It is in evidence that the accused was apprehended by the excise officials while he was transporting 248 liters of spirit in the mini lorry bearing registration No.KL-42-5280 driven by him by keeping the same in the secret chambers of the said vehicle. The argument put forward by the accused that he was unaware about the contraband kept in the vehicle is implausible. There was no other person in the mini lorry. His dominion and control over the contraband transported by him in the mini lorry driven by him establishes the fact that he was in conscious possession of the contraband. 16. At this juncture, let us have a look at Section 64 of the Abkari Act which reads as under: “ 64. Presumption as to commission of offence in certain cases . 16. At this juncture, let us have a look at Section 64 of the Abkari Act which reads as under: “ 64. Presumption as to commission of offence in certain cases . - In prosecutions under Section 55, Section 55B, Section 56A, Section 57, Section 58, Section 58A and Section 58B, it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved, that the accused person has committed an offence under that section in respect of any liquor or intoxicating drug, or any still, utensil, implement or apparatus whatsoever for the manufacture of liquor other than toddy or of any intoxicating drug, or any such materials as are ordinarily used in the manufacture of liquor or of any intoxicating drug, of the possession of which he is unable to account satisfactorily; and the holder of a licence or permit under this Act shall be punishable, as well as the actual offender, for any offence committed by any person in his employ and acting on his behalf under Section 8 or Section 55 or Section 55B or Section 56 or 56A or Section 57 or Section 58 or Section 58A or Section 58B as if he had himself committed the same, unless he shall establish that all due and reasonable precautions were exercised by him to prevent the commission of such offence.” 17. When the prosecution proves conscious possession, a statutory presumption under Section 64 of the Abkari Act is to be drawn, shifting the burden to the accused to account for his possession legally and satisfactorily. 18. In Rakesh Kumar Raghuvanshi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (MANU/SC/0091/2025) :( 2025 INSC 96 ), the Apex Court held as follows: "14. Thus, before the Court holds the Accused guilty of the offence under the NDPS Act, possession is something that the prosecution needs to establish with cogent evidence. If the Accused is found to be in possession of any contraband which is a narcotic drug, it is for the Accused to account for such possession satisfactorily, if not, the presumption Under Section 54 comes into place." It was also observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision cited supra that whether there was conscious possession has to be determined with reference to the factual backdrop. 19. 19. In Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat [ 2000 (2) SCC 513 ], the Hon’ble Apex Court held that once the prosecution proves that accused was in physical possession of the contraband, it becomes the duty of the accused to demonstrate that he had no knowledge or intent thereby negating the presumption of criminal liability under the NDPS Act. 20. In Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab [ 2002 (7) SCC 419 ] , the Apex Court held that if the prosecution proves that the accused was in conscious possession, the presumption arises and a corresponding burden shifts to the accused to disprove his knowledge of the contraband. 21. In Madan Lal and another v. State of HP [ 2003(7) SCC 465 ], the Apex Court reiterated that conscious possession should be inferred when the accused has knowledge and control over the substance. 22. It is to be borne in mind that when the accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C, he did not furnish any explanation at all as to the illicit spirit seized from the mini lorry driven by him. 23. The evidence on record would show that at the time of seizure of contraband spirit from the lorry bearing registration No.KL-42-5280, he was alone in the said lorry. Accused did not provide any explanation whatsoever to account for his possession of a huge quantity of spirit, under what circumstances he happened to drive the lorry containing the contraband spirit. The absence of any explanation from his side leads to a presumption that he knowingly transported the illicit spirit and he had the requisite mental state. There is no evidence to rebut that presumption of a culpable mental state. The circumstances established in the case on hand vividly points to his awareness and control over the contraband seized from the lorry, which was transported by him. The evidence on record would show that he was in possession of the lorry bearing registration No.KL-42-5280 and he was driving the lorry at the time when the lorry was intercepted and checked by the excise officials. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused that the accused was not in conscious possession of the spirit cannot be accepted, as rightly held by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused that the accused was not in conscious possession of the spirit cannot be accepted, as rightly held by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge. Once physical possession is demonstrated in circumstances suggesting awareness, Section 64 of the Abkari Act activates a pivotal presumption. 24. The prosecution has succeeded in establishing the conscious possession of the contraband by the accused. It is in evidence that he transported the illicit spirit and possessed it with conscious knowledge of what he was doing. 25. Under Section 64 of the Abkari Act , there is a presumption that an accused in a prosecution under Section 55 of the Abkari Act has committed the offence in respect of the liquor, the possession of which he is unable to account satisfactorily. 26. Accused has not been able to account satisfactorily the possession of a huge quantity of spirit found in the mini lorry driven by him. The only conclusion which can be reached by this Court is that he was in conscious possession of the said contraband. 27. The trial court and the appellate court have analysed the evidence in its correct perspective and have reached at the right conclusion. Therefore, the conviction against the accused/revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act does not call for any interference and accordingly, conviction against him for the said offence is confirmed. 28. Regard being had to the huge quantity of the spirit seized from the conscious possession of the accused and taking into account the gravity of the offence committed, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused by the trial court which was confirmed by the appellate court, as it is found to be a sentence commensurate with the gravity of offence. Hence, this revision petition stands dismissed. The trial court shall take steps to execute the sentence against the accused. Registry shall transmit the records to the trial court forthwith.