Appellate court examined conviction under Abkari Act where seized liquor was produced to court after 40 days without sampling details. Court found prosecution failed to prove accusation beyond reasonable doubt.
The appeal is allowed; the accused is acquitted; the fine amount deposited shall be returned to the accused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU
THURSDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2007 / 14TH ASHADHA 1929
CRL.A.No. 499 of 2002()
----------------------SC.66/1999 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT FAST TRACK (ADHOC-I), KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT: ACCUSED
CHATHUKUTTY, S/O.IMBICHAN, PARAKURINGOTT HOUSE, VIYUR AMSOM DESOM, QUILANDY TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/07/2007,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.NO.499/2002
ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.4459/2002 & CRL.M.P.NO.6220/2002 IN CRL.A.NO.499/2002
DISMISSED
6.7.2007
SD/- K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
K.R.UDAYABHANU, J
Crl.A.No.499 of 2002
-----------------------------------------Dated this the 6th day of July, 2007
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the accused in the proceedings initiated for the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and who stands convicted to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
Page numbers
CRA499/2002
inconsequential. The seized article on chemical examination was found to contain 23.45% by volume of ethyl alcohol and hence, evidently it was illicit liquor.
CRA499/2002
Page numbers
custody also, PW5, the Sub Inspector, has not testified anything as to the custody of the article seized and kept at the police station as well. As already noted above the seizure mahazar did not contain any detail as to when, where and in what manner the sample was taken. It only mentions in Ext. P1 as an additional item that item No.2 is the sample containing 375 ml in a sealed bottle. In view of the stringent punishment provided in the statute, that is, adduce imprisonment for a period which may extended to 10 years and fine which shall not be extended to Rs.1 lakh the prosecution ought to have adduced strict proof with respect to the fact that there was no occasion for substituting the sample of the contraband allegedly seized.
The appeal is allowed.
K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE
csl
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt due to delay in production of seized contraband and absence of sampling details in seizure mahazar.,
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Alex vs. StateReferred¶35
Alex vs. State (2003(1) KLT SN (9) case No.12)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Chathukutty, S/O.Imbichan
Respondent 1
Respondent 2
K.R.Udayabhanu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
K.R.Udayabhanu
Parties & counsel
