The High Court acquitted the appellant in possession of arrack charges. It allowed the revision petition, holding that the absence of a forwarding note prevented proof of tamper-proof sample dispatch and unexplained investigation delay was fatal to the prosecution.
Conviction and sentence quashed; revision petitioner acquitted and set at liberty.
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
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/28TH BHADRA, 1938
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2152 of 2010 ( )
Crl.A 223/2009 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, ALAPPUZHA IN SC 655/2006 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
CHANDRAN, AGED 44, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, THAIVEPPIL VEEDU, MAHADEVIKADU MURI, KARTHIKAPPALLY VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ARUN KUMAR
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI K A ANAS
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
Crl.R.P.No.2152 of 2010
O R D E R
The accused in S.C.No.655 of 2006 on the files of the
Assistant Sessions Court, Alappuzha filed this revision petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction
and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act.
6.30 p.m., the revision petitioner was found in possession of 1.100 litre of arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.
and Exts.P1 to P9 were marked for the prosecution, besides
Crl.R.P.2152/2010
: 2 :
identifying MO1. No evidence was adduced on the side of the revision petitioner.
“Further in the absence specimen seal impression of the seal used for sealing the article having been produced in Court and in the absence of producing and marking the
Crl.R.P.2152/2010
: 3 :
forwarding note which is expected to contain the specimen seal impression of the seal used for sealing the sample for the purpose of enabling the chemical examiner to verify and satisfy regarding the genuineness of the sample produced for examination, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the articles were produced in Court in the same condition in which it was seized and it reached the chemical examiner's lab in a tamper proof condition and the chemical analysis report relates to the representative sample said to have been taken from the large quantity of contraband article alleged to have been seized from the possession of the accused. If this was not proved to the satisfaction of the Court, then it cannot be said that the prosecution had succeeded in bringing home the complexity of the accused in the commission of the crime and that benefit must be given to the accused.”
720], the court observed thus:-
Crl.R.P.2152/2010
: 4 :
“Without the link evidence of actual sampling by the concerned clerk of the court by drawing sample from the can and sending the same in a sealed packet to the Chemical Examiner with a specimen seal sent separately for tamper proof despatch, the Prosecution cannot be held to have brought home the offence against the appellant.”
Crl.R.P.2152/2010
: 5 :
the court only on 28.7.2006 after completing the investigation. PW6 took over the investigation only on 12.7.2006. PW6 recorded the statement of witnesses only on 26.7.2006. No explanation had been given by the prosecution as to why there was inordinate delay in conducting the investigation. The court in Krishnan H. v. State [2015(1) KHC 822] held that the inordinate delay in conducting the investigation, in the absence of sufficient explanation, is fatal to the prosecution. In this case, since there was long and unexplained delay in conducting the investigation, the same is, no doubt, fatal to the prosecution case. For the said reason also, the revision petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
In the result, this revision petition stands allowed,
Crl.R.P.2152/2010
: 6 :
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 cancelled and he
is set at liberty.
Sd/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE
dl/20.9..2016
// True Copy // PA to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution proved tamper-proof despatch of seized arrack samples without a forwarding note.
Whether inordinate delay in investigation without explanation warrants benefit of doubt to the accused.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prakasan and another v. State of KeralaRelied on¶30
Prakasan and another v. State of Kerala [2016(1) KLD 311]
Sasidharan v. State of KeralaRelied on¶36
Sasidharan v. State of Kerala [2007 (1) KLT 720]
Krishnan H. v. StateRelied on¶44
Krishnan H. v. State [2015(1) KHC 822]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Chandran
State of Kerala
B.Sudheendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
