The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence in a criminal appeal. It held that the detecting officer was not authorised to inquire into abkari offences, rendering the detection and proceedings nonest, relying on Unni v. State of Kerala.
The conviction and sentence are set aside; the accused stands acquitted; his bail bond is cancelled, and he is set at liberty.
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 P.BHAVADASAN
SATURDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/30TH KARTHIKA, 1937
CRL.A.No. 25 of 2006 (C)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 413/2000 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) I, KOLLAM DATED 31-12-2005
APPELLANT(S)/ACCUSED.:
PRAKASH, S/O.SOMAN, VIJAYA BHAVAN, KAITHAKKUZHI CHERI ADICHANALLOOR VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT.:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I.OF POLICE, CHATHANOOR POLICE STATION (CRIME NO. 98/99)THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ds
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
J U D G M E N T
The accused faced prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 55(a) & (i) of the Abkari Act. He was found guilty. Consequently he was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of 1 lakh with a default₹ clause.
Crl.A. No. 25 of 2006
-2-
and it had a capacity of two litres. It was found to contain some sort of a liquid. By taste and smell, it was identified as arrack. The accused was arrested on the spot. 200ml of contraband article was taken as sample. The sample so taken and also the balance contraband article were sealed and labelled at the place of incident itself and the Ext.P1 mahazar was prepared. He returned to the Station and registered crime No. 98/1999 as per Ext.P3 FIR. Subsequent investigation was conducted by PW4. The accused, who was arrested by PW5, was produced before the court by PW4 and he prepared the list of property namely, Ext.P4. The Chemical Analysis Report Ext.P5 was also obtained by him. He recorded statements of witnesses, completed investigation and laid charge before court.
Crl.A. No. 25 of 2006
-3-
after following the necessary procedures. The said court made over the case to Additional District & Sessions Court (Adhoc) - I, Kollam, for trial and disposal.
Crl.A. No. 25 of 2006
-4-
Crl.A. No. 25 of 2006
-5-
incompetent proceedings. For the above propositions, the learned counsel relied on the decisions reported in Unni v. State of Kerala (2009 (2) KHC 661). It was then pointed out that it is significant to notice that the arrest memo is not seen produced and there is no reason given why it is not so done. Further, the learned counsel pointed out that there is no forwarding note also produced by the prosecution to show that the specimen seal that is claimed to have been affixed on the sample is sent for chemical examination. For the proposition that failure to produce the forwarding note is fatal, the learned counsel relied on the decision reported in Joseph v. State of Kerala (2009 (4) KHC 537), Majeedkutty v. Excise Inspector (2015 (1) KLT 624) and Krishnan v. State (2015 (2) KLT SN 8). Added to this, the learned counsel points out that there is a delay of six days in producing the articles before court. The learned counsel pointed out that may be the court below was carried away by the statements made by PWs 3 and 5. But that alone
Crl.A. No. 25 of 2006
-6-
may not be sufficient to convict the accused in the light of the above infirmities pointed out.
Crl.A. No. 25 of 2006
-7-
intercepted the accused and seized the can from him and also seized the contraband article. They also speak about the sampling done by PW5. It is true that PWs 3 and 5 do say about the preparation of Ext.P1 mahazar also. It is PW5
who had registered the crime.
“To prove the guilt of the accused for the possession of the contraband, that is, five litres of arrack in a jerry can, as alleged, the prosecution relied entirely on the evidence of
Crl.A. No. 25 of 2006
-8-
two Police officers connected with the detection and seizure of the contraband, who were examined as PWs 1 and 2. PW 1, Asst. S.I. Of Police, who detected the crime and seized the contraband, had no authority to do so, is the attack raised by the learned counsel for the accused, relying on the notification of SRO No. 321/1996 and also the decision rendered by this Court in Sabu v. State of Kerala, 2007 (3) KHC 753: 2007 (4) KLT 169. If it was a case of accidental detection without prior information, then it could be stated that any police officer was expected to prevent the commission of any offence and taking the offender into custody. But this was a case, even according to the prosecution, PW 1, the Asst. S.I. of Police received prior information of sale of illicit arrack in the residential building of the accused. He proceeded to that spot, pursuant to that information indicated that he went there to have a raid of the building, and, search the place. When a raid over the residential building for detection of Abkari offence is involved, necessarily and inevitably the mandate covered by S.31 of the Act applies with full force. There is nothing in evidence to show that PW1 complied with the formalities for conducting search over the residential
Crl.A. No. 25 of 2006
-9-
building of the accused. Immediately on getting information, he rushed to the spot and reaching there, found the accused with a jerry can beside the courtyard of his building, seized the contraband into custody and arrested him, is the prosecution case. As per S.4 of the Abkari Act, the Government had authorised only certain Officers of the State to detect or investigate the offences contemplated under the Abkari Act. The Asst. S.I. of Police, as per the notification issued by the Government, is not authorised nor empowered to detect or investigate the abkari offences. Having regard to the fact that PW 1 went over to the residential building of the accused pursuant to information that sale of illicit arrack ws conducted there, prima facie, indicating that he went over to proceed with a search of that building, that too, without complying with the formalities, it follows that whatever acts performed by him pursuant to reaching the spot could not be taken as having been done with the sanction of law. No doubt, illegality or irregularity in a search will not by itself vitiate the evidence collected by the search and there is no bar in relying upon the evidence collected in such search to inculpate the accused. But in the given case, what has come out is that the
Crl.A. No. 25 of 2006
-10-
prosecution at a later stage had developed a case that at the relevant time, PW 1, the Asst. S.I. of Police was in charge of the police station, and as such he was competent to detect a crime and seize the contraband. PW 1 has no such case when he was examined before the Court. So much so, the assertion of PW 4 that PW 1 at the relevant time was in charge of the S.I. of police since that officer was on leave cannot be given much value. So, there is much force in the submission of the learned counsel for the accused that PW 1 was not an authorised officer competent to detect and investigate an offence under the Abkari Act, and as such the detection made by him was unauthorised. The accused in the given facts is entitled to the benefit of doubt since PW 1 was not empowered to detect and investigate the crime. So much so, it has to be concluded that the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused are liable to be set aside, and I do so. The accused is found not guilty and acquitted of the offence under S. 55 (a) of the Abkari Act. Fine amount, if any, remitted by the accused shall be refunded to him. Appeal is allowed.”
Crl.A. No. 25 of 2006
-11-
For the above reasons, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the court below are set
Crl.A. No. 25 of 2006
-12-
aside and the accused stands acquitted of all charges levelled against him. His bail bond shall stand cancelled and
he is set at liberty.
Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE
ds
//True copy//
P.A. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether conviction under the Abkari Act is valid when detection and seizure were made by a police officer unauthorised to inquire into abkari offences.
Whether the non-production of forwarding note for chemical analysis renders the proceedings nonest.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Unni v. State of KeralaFollowed¶35
Unni v. State of Kerala (2009 (2) KHC 661)
Sabu v. State of KeralaRelied on¶35
Sabu v. State of Kerala, 2007 (3) KHC 753: 2007 (4) KLT 169
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Prakash
State of Kerala
P.Bhavadasan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
P.Bhavadasan
Parties & counsel
