Kerala High Court allowed criminal revision petition, acquitting appellant. Court held that unexplained long delay in investigation after case took place was fatal to prosecution cases set aside conviction sentence under Abkari Act.
Conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted; bail bond discharged.
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.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/3RD KARTHIKA, 1938 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1407 of 2015 ()
CRL.A 201/2014 of D.C. & SESSIONS & MACT,KASARAGOD SC 352/2010 of SUB COURT, HOSDRUG
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
N.RAJAN
S/O. K.NARAYANAN, R/AT PADUVAM VAYAL, KALIYADUKKAM DESOM, PERIYA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DIST.
BY ADV. SRI.RAHUL SASI
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI C K PRASAD
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
Dated this the 25th day of October 2016
O R D E R
The revision petitioner was found guilty under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act concurrently by the courts below.
about 6.15 p.m., the revision petitioner was found in possession of 5 litres of arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.
and Exts.P1 to P12 were marked for the prosecution. No
Crl.R.P.1407/2015
: 2 :
evidence was adduced on the side of the revision petitioner.
Crl.R.P.1407/2015
: 3 :
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 conducting the investigation. No explanation had been given by PW5 with regard to the delay in conducting the investigation and filing the final report before the court. In the said circumstances, the said delay is fatal to the prosecution case, particularly when the contraband involved in this case is only 5 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.
In the result, this revision petition stands allowed,
Crl.R.P.1407/2015
: 4 :
setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the
courts below under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act and the revision petitioner is acquitted for the said offence. The bail bond of the revision petitioner stands discharged .
Needless to state that if the revision petitioner had deposited any amount before the trial court pursuant to the direction of this court as per order dated 20.1.2016, the revision petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of the said
amount from the trial court.
Sd/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE
dl/.26.10..2016
// True Copy //
__
PA to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether prolonged delay in investigation and filing of final report without explanation renders the prosecution case fatal.
Whether the conviction under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act can be sustained given the delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Krishnan H. v. StateApplied¶32
Krishnan H. v. State [2015(1) KHC 822]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N. Rajan
State of Kerala
B. Sudheendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
