‘The house is not mine, I don’t know what goes on here’: Anto Augustine sticks to stance during evidence collection

SULTAN BATHERY: Even when brought by the Excise team to the house at Moonganani in Vazhavatta for evidence collection in an Abkari case, accused Anto Augustine maintained that he did not own the property and knew nothing about what happened there.

The Excise team conducted evidence collection inside the house, including in the room from where the liquor was seized. According to reports, Anto initially did not co-operate with the proceedings, maintaining that it was not his house and that he had no knowledge of the activities taking place there.

The Bathery Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (One) handed Anto Augustine over to Excise custody on Saturday afternoon. Although the prosecution had sought four days' custody for interrogation and evidence collection at the house where the liquor was seized, Magistrate Atheena Biju granted custody only until noon on Sunday.

After undergoing a medical examination at Bathery Taluk Hospital, Anto was brought to the Meenangadi Excise office at around 1.10 pm. He was taken to the house at Vazhavatta at 2.25 pm.

Anto was taken out of the Excise vehicle in front of the automatic gate. When he appeared before the court in the morning, he had told the media that he had something to say about the case and that it could wait for a while. When journalists raised the matter again in front of the gate, Anto began speaking, but an Excise officer intervened and stopped him.

Anto then asked the Excise official, “If I am not to speak, why should I be stopped here? You could have just driven the vehicle inside the house.” The official replied that the vehicle had stopped because the gate had to be opened, following which the gate was opened.

Anto walked towards the house and stopped after entering the premises. Excise and police officials then asked the journalists accompanying them to leave the property. Evidence collection was subsequently carried out inside the house. Some members of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) also arrived, while witnesses were summoned to the house.

The Excise team completed the evidence collection at around 6.25 pm and left with Anto. The investigation is focusing on the source of the liquor stash, whether anyone else was involved and where the materials allegedly used to make illicit liquor were obtained. Anto was then taken to the Meenangadi Excise office for interrogation.

The magistrate issued the custody order after arguments and counter-arguments lasting around half an hour.

The defence argued that Anto's arrest had been made without following due procedure, that the house where the liquor was found did not belong to him and that the seized liquor had not been recovered in his presence. Defence counsel P.J. Antony also argued that there were no documents to establish that the liquor had been stored for sale.

The defence further contended that possessing liquor in excess of the permissible quantity was a bailable offence, but the court did not accept the argument. It also argued that if foreign-made liquor had been brought into the country, the applicable taxes would have been paid.

Meanwhile, the prosecution argued that there was a possibility of evidence being destroyed if the accused was granted bail and sought four days' custody for detailed interrogation.

The prosecution said it needed to ascertain whether the alcohol-containing beverage had been manufactured at the house itself and trace the source of the foreign-made liquor. It also said Anto's passport needed to be examined in this regard.