The High Court of Kerala held that contradictory chemical analysis reports regarding starch content in toddy samples drawn simultaneously from the same shop entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt, warranting the quashing of criminal proceedings.
All further proceedings in C.C. No. 4948 of 2014 quashed; Crl.M.C. No. 430 of 2016 allowed.
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
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/21ST MAGHA, 1937
Crl.MC.No. 430 of 2016 ()
CC.NO. 4948/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, CHENGANNUR CRIME NO. 17/2014 OF CHENGANNUR EXCISE RANGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:
1. RAMANAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 42 YEARS, THAYYIL HOUSE, VATTAYKKAD DESOM,
2. MADHUMOHAN, S/O. DIVAKARAN, AGED 48 YEARS,
3. SUSHAMA, D/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 44 YEARS, PUTHUPARAMBIL THEKKETHIL, PERINGALIPPURAMMURI, ENNAKKAD VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK,
4. SUNILKUMAR,S/O. PAVITHRAN, AGED 40 YEARS,
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
CRL.MC.NO.430/2016
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
| ANNEX A1 | COPY OF THE CRIME AND OCCURRENCE REPORT IN CR.NO.17/2014 OF CHENGANNUR EXCISE RANGE. |
|---|---|
| ANNEX AII | COPY OF THE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS REPORT ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT CHEMICAL EXAMINATION TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. |
| ANNEX AIII | COPY OF THE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS REPORT DATED 25/3/2014 |
| ANNEX AIV | COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 13/10/2014 IN CRL.MC.NO.5728 OF 2014. |
| ANNEX AV | COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CR.NO.17 OF 2014 OF CHENGANNUR EXCISE RANGE. |
| ANNEX AVI | COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/01/2016 IN CRL.MC.NO.5728 OF 2014. |
| ANNEX AVII | COPY OF THE ALCOHOLIC DRINKS TODDY SPECIFICATION PRESCRIBED BY THE BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS. |
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
B.KEMAL PASHA, J.
================ Crl.M.C. No. 430 of 2016
======================= Dated this the 10th day of February, 2016
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
Crl.M.C. No. 430 of 2016
-: 2 :-
that it is not a right conferred on the petitioners to get the second sample also analysed, and even on analysis of the second sample, there is no provision contained in the Abkari Act to the effect that the result of the chemical analysis of the second sample will supersede the analysis report of the first sample. It is also argued that there is no identical provision as the one contained in the Prevention of Adulteration Act, in the Abkari Act and therefore, this Crl.M.C. is devoid of merits.
simultaneously, preservatives were added, and the samples were kept. The first sample was sent for chemical analysis and its report shows that it contained starch. When the second sample was subjected to chemical analysis, it has come out that the same does not contain starch. Whether it
is a right conferred on the petitioners to send the second sample also for chemical analysis or not, is a different
Crl.M.C. No. 430 of 2016
-: 3 :-
aspect. It is a fact that both the reports are contradictory. The first report shows that the sample contained starch, whereas the second sample drawn simultaneously along with the first sample, does not show the presence of starch on chemical analysis. Even without any such right for sending the second sample also for chemical analysis conferred on the petitioners, or even without any identical provision in the Abkari Act enabling the same, when two contradictory reports are there, there cannot be a successful prosecution in the matter since the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the doubt. When there are contradictory reports, the benefit of that doubt should go to the accused. Petitioners are the accused in this case. Matters being so, no purpose would be served in the continued prosecution of the matter further and therefore, all further proceedings in C.C. No.4948 of 2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Chengannur, which has arisen from C.R.No.17 of 2014 of the Chengannur Excise Range, Alappuzha, can be
Crl.M.C. No. 430 of 2016
-: 4 :-
quashed.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings in C.C. No.4948 of 2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Chengannur, which has arisen from C.R.No.17 of 2014 of the Chengannur Excise Range, Alappuzha, are hereby quashed.
Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE
stu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether contradictory chemical analysis reports on samples from the same source allow the benefit of doubt to the accused.
Whether continued prosecution can stand when first sample analysis shows starch and simultaneous second sample analysis does not.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
RAMANAN
MADHUMOHAN
SUSHAMA
SUNILKUMAR
STATE OF KERALA
B.KEMAL PASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
