The Supreme Court of Kerala allowed the criminal appeal. The court held that in the absence of evidence proving the date the seized sample was produced before the court, the chemical analysis certificate could not be relied upon for conviction.
Conviction and sentence set aside; Appellant acquitted.
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 B.KEMAL PASHA
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2016/31ST SRAVANA, 1938
CRL.A.No. 608 of 2009 (A)
SC.NO. 1304/2006 OF ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED :
SANKARAN,S/O.CHANTHOMAN, KOTTOPARAMMAL, ELATTIL AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODUVALLY POLICE STATION,
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.HRITHWIK
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
B. KEMAL PASHA, J
=================
Crl.Appeal No.608 of 2009
================= Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2016
The appellant is the accused in Sessions Case No.1304 of 2006 of the Additional Sessions Court
(Adhoc-II), Kozhikode, who stands convicted under Section 8 of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of `1,00,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six more months.
Crl.A.No.608 of 2009 2
Crl.A.No.608 of 2009
3
aforesaid.
and the learned Public Prosecutor.
argued that there is no evidence in this case from the part of the prosecution to prove the date on which the sample was produced before court. It has also been pointed out that Exhibit-P4 copy of the forwarding note shows that the forwarding note reached the court on 17.11.2005 only. It has been argued that when there is nothing to show that the sample was produced before court at the earliest point of time, Exhibit-P5 certificate of chemical analysis cannot be relied on for entering a conviction.
Crl.A.No.608 of 2009 4
proved. Matters being so, there is absolutely nothing
to show the actual date on which the properties were produced before court. Exhibit-P4 copy of the forwarding note clearly shows that the same had reached the court on 17.11.2005 only.
In the result, this Crl.Appeal is allowed and the
Crl.A.No.608 of 2009
5
conviction and sentence passed by the court below are set aside. The appellant is acquitted.
Sd/-
B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.
DSV/23/8/16
// True Copy //
P.A. To Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction is safe in the absence of proof regarding the date the seized sample was produced before the court.
Whether reliance on the chemical analysis certificate for conviction is valid when it cannot be linked to the date of production in court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sankaran
State of Kerala
B. Kemal Pasha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
