Allowed

Ambu T. v. Kerala State

Kerala HC25 Oct 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/1132/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a criminal revision petition, setting aside the conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act due to long, unexplained delays in the investigation and filing of the final report, leading to acquittal and discharge of bail bond.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; petitioner acquitted; bail bond discharged.

Ambu T. Vs Kerala State — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/3RD KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1132 of 2014 ()

¶6

SC 493/2010 of SUB COURT, KASARAGOD Crl.A 286/2011 of SESSIONS COURT,KASARAGOD

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ ACCUSED:

¶8

AMBU T.

¶9

S/O CHIRUKANTHAN, KARUVANCHIYAM, KUTTIKKOL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.J.ABHILASH

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶12

KERALA STATE

¶13

REPRESENTED BY THE EXCISE INSEPCTOR BANDADUKKA EXCISE RANGE, BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031

¶14

BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI RAMESH CHAND

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶17

- - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No.1132 of 2014

¶18

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25^th day of October 2016

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced

¶21

under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act concurrently by the

¶22

courts below.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

The prosecution allegation is that on 13.10.2008 at

¶25

about 1.15 p.m., the revision petitioner was found in possession of 3 litres of arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

¶26

Before the trial court, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Exts.P1 to P11 were marked for the prosecution. No

¶27

Crl.R.P.1132/2014

¶28

: 2 :

¶29

evidence was adduced on the side of the revision petitioner.

¶30

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has

¶31

argued that even though the occurrence was on 13.10.2008,

¶32

the final report was filed before the court only on 25.1.2010 and in the said circumstances, the revision petitioner is entitled to acquittal.

¶33

PW4 was the Excise Inspector who filed the final report before the court. He stated that he took over the investigation of this case only on 4.1.2010. Thereafter, he prepared the scene mahazar and questioned the witnesses. The court in Krishnan H. v. State [2015(1) KHC 822] held that the long delay in conducting the investigation, in the absence of sufficient explanation, is fatal to the prosecution. In this case, there was long delay in

¶34

Crl.R.P.1132/2014

¶35

: 3 :

¶36

conducting the investigation. No explanation had been given by PW4 with regard to the delay in conducting the investigation and filing the final report before the court. Since there was long and unexplained delay in conducting the investigation and filing the final report before the court, the same is no doubt fatal to the prosecution case as held in Krishnan (supra), particularly when the quantity involved in this case is only 3 litres. The above vital aspect was not considered by the courts below while appreciating the evidence. In the said circumstances, the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below cannot be sustained.

¶37

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the

¶38

Crl.R.P.1132/2014

¶39

: 4 :

¶40

courts below under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act and the

¶41

revision petitioner is acquitted for the said offence. The

¶42

bail bond of the revision petitioner stands discharged .

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶45

dl/26.10.2016

¶46

// True Copy //

¶47

PA to Judge

Ambu T. v. Kerala State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambu T. v. Kerala State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sobhana Vs State of Kerala and Another

Parameswaran Vs State of Kerala

Kandambeth Chandran Vs Ibrahim @ Ibrahimkutty V.V.

Baby @Thomas Vs State of Kerala

N.Rajan Vs State of Kerala

Sathiyakumar Vs State of Kerala & Anr.