In an appeal against conviction under the Abkari Act, the High Court acquitted the appellant. The court held that unexplained delays in producing seized arrack samples to the court raised reasonable doubts about tampering, rendering the chemical analysis inadmissible for conviction.
Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant stands 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 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
CRL.A.No. 922 of 2009 (A)
ORDER DATED 28-04-2009 IN SC 786/2002 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ABKARI ACT CASES), KOTTARAKKARA
APPELLANT(S)/ACCUSED NO.1:
ANTONY, S/O.MIHAYEL, CHERUPUSHPAVILASOM, KAITHACODU MURI, PAVITHRESWARAM VILLAGE, EZHUKONE, KOLLAM, DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE SRI.DILIP MOHAN
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR, EZHUKONE POLICE STATION, EZHUKONE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
B. KEMAL PASHA, J.
................................................................ Crl. Appeal No. 922 of 2009 ............................................................... Dated this the 19th day of December, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The first accused in Sessions Case No.786/2002 of the Additional Sessions Court(Abkari cases), Kottarakkara, who stands convicted under Sections 55(a) and (b) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of ₹1,00,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three more months each, has come up in appeal. A2 and A3 were acquitted by the court below.
Crl. Appeal No. 922 of 2009
-: 2 :-
quantity of 5 litres of arrack was seized from the possession of the appellant.
Crl. Appeal No. 922 of 2009
-: 3 :-
Crl. Appeal No. 922 of 2009 -: 4 :-
Even though the samples were drawn on 17.06.2000, the same, including the properties involved in the case, were seen first produced before court on 14.07.2000 only. On that date, the said properties were returned for safe custody and production at a subsequent time. Subsequently, the same were seen produced on 26.07.2000, as is evident from Ext.P4 property list. There is no explanation as to how such an inordinate delay has occurred in the production of samples before the court. When there is unexplained inordinate delay in the production of samples before court, the chances of tampering with the samples cannot be ruled out. There is no evidence to show as to who was the custodian of the properties, till its production before the court. Matters being so, it is not at all safe to rely on Ext.P5 for entering in a conviction against the appellant. Hence, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below are liable to be set aside.
In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed, and the
Crl. Appeal No. 922 of 2009
-: 5 :-
conviction and sentence passed by the court below are set aside. The appellant stands acquitted.
Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.
ul/-
// true copy //
P.S. to Judge.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether unexplained inordinate delay in producing seized samples before the court makes the chemical analysis unreliable for conviction?
ANTONY
STATE OF KERALA
B. KEMAL PASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
