from the appellant. Further these witness have stated that the appellant was arrested at the spot on preparing Ext.P2 arrest memo by CW1. Further these witnesses have stated that copy of the arrest memo has been served on the wife of the appellant. Though these witnesses were thoroughly crossexamined by the defence counsel, the evidence has not been shattered. PW6 had stated that he continued the investigation of the case and finally laid the charge and as per Ext.P6 report, it was reported that the sample contained 29.65% ethyl alcohol by volume. The trial court, relying on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, found that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the case against the appellant. Though two witnesses, Pws 4 and 5, were examined to support the prosecution case, they turned hostile to the prosecution, they admit their signatures in Ext.P1 mahazar. In the above circumstances, the trial court rightly relied on the evidence adduced by the prosecution and found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 8 (1) read with Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act.
