Allowed

Ramakrishnan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Jul 2013CRL.A/253/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant appealed against conviction for possessing arrack under the Abkari Act. The High Court observed absence of evidence regarding how the chemical analysis certificate pertained to the seized bottles and that no on-site sample was drawn in the appellant's presence. Due to failure to prove identification of contraband via chemical analysis, the High Court set aside the conviction and acqu

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted; bail bonds cancelled; liberty forthwith.

Ramakrishnan Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2013/3RD SRAVANA, 1935

¶5

CRL.A.No. 253 of 2007 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 623/2003 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOLLAM DATED 17-01-2007

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CP 142/2001 of J.M.F.C.- I, KARUNAGAPPALLY C.R.NO.72/2000 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY EXCISE RANGE

¶8

APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, EZHATHENONDIL VEEDU, MUZHATHODI MURI THODIYOOR VILLAGE, KARUNGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.B.MOHANLAL SMT.MEREENA JOSEPH SRI.RATHEESH.P.R.

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE EXCISE RANGE INSPECTOR, KARUNAGAPPALLY KOLLAM DISTRICT THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SREEJITH V.S.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶16

¶17

Crl. Appeal No.253 of 2007 B

¶18

Dated this the 25^th day of July, 2013

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶21

Accused in S.C.No.623/2003 of the Additional

¶22

Sessions court (Adhoc-II), Kollam, who stands convicted under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of ₹2 lakhs, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one more year, has come up in appeal.

¶23

The allegation against the appellant is that, on

¶24

21.06.2000 at 1.15 p.m., he was found carrying a plastic carry bag, which contained one bottle containing 1½ litres and another bottle containing 750 ml. of arrack. PW1, Excise Inspector, Karunagappally, and party, while on patrol duty, saw the appellant walking through the road with the said contraband at Muzhathodimuri. They intercepted the

¶25

Crl.A.253/2007

¶26

: 2 :

¶27

appellant and seized the contraband through Ext.P1 mahazar. He sealed the bottles. He reached the excise office with the appellant and the material objects and registered Ext.P2 occurrence report. He produced the contraband before court along with Ext.P3 property list. Ext.P4 is the certificate of chemical analysis.

¶28

On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exts.P1 to P4 were marked. MOs 1 and 2 were identified. No defence evidence was adduced. The court below found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him as aforesaid.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly argued that there is no evidence in this case to prove that Ext.P4 certificate of chemical analysis is in respect of the contraband allegedly seized from the possession of the appellant.

¶30

Crl.A.253/2007

¶31

: 3 :

¶32

PW1, Excise Inspector, Karungappally, has stated

¶33

in evidence that, while he, along with the excise party, was on patrol duty, they could see the appellant coming with a plastic kit containing two bottles. One bottle contained 1½ litre and the other bottle contained 750 ml. of arrack. He placed him under arrest and seized the contraband through Ext.P1 mahazar. He went to the office along with the appellant and the material objects and registered C.R.No.72/2000 through Ext.P2 occurrence report. He produced the contraband before court through Ext.P3 property list. Further, according to him, the sample was taken by the court and Ext.P4 is the certificate of chemical analysis. From the evidence of PW1, it has come out that

¶34

no sample was drawn from the contraband at the spot in the presence of the appellant.

¶35

PW2 was the Preventive Officer of Excise, who

¶36

was present along with PW1 on 01.06.2000 at the time of seizure. He has corroborated the versions of PW1 with all

¶37

Crl.A.253/2007

¶38

: 4 :

¶39

material particulars.

¶40

As usual in an abkari case, PWs 3 and 4, who were cited as independent witnesses to prove the occurrence, have turned hostile to the prosecution. They have even denied their signatures in Ext.P1.

¶41

PW5 was the Excise Inspector, Karunagappally on 19.06.2001. He completed the investigation and filed the complaint.

¶42

It seems that even a requisition was not given by PW1 before court for sending the sample for chemical analysis. It seems that simply the contraband was produced before court and PW1 assumes that the court might have taken the sample and might have sent the property for chemical analysis. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no evidence in this case to show that a sample was drawn from the contraband, who drew the sample, when it was sent for chemical analysis, etc. Matters being so, there is no evidence to show that

¶43

Crl.A.253/2007

¶44

: 5 :

¶45

Ext.P4 certificate of chemical analysis pertains to the contraband involved in this case. On that simple score itself, the prosecution fails and the conviction is bad in l aw. Therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the court are liable to be set aside.

¶46

In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the court below are set aside. The appellant is acquitted. His bail bonds shall

¶47

stand cancelled and he is set at liberty forthwith.

¶48

Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶49

aks/25/07

¶50

// True Copy //

¶51

PA to Judge

Ramakrishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakrishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vasudevan Vs State of Kerala

The General Manager (Hr) Jetair P. Ltd. Vs District Labour Officer,Thiruvananthapur

Vallikkathodi Surendran Vs the State of Kerala

Moideenkutty Vs State of Kerala

Raman Vs State

Dinesan Vs State of Kerala