Allowed

Vannathan Veettil Cheeyayi v. Excise Inspector

Kerala HC6 Aug 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/2534/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed the criminal revision petition, setting aside the conviction and sentence under Section 58 of the Abkari Act. The Court held that the inordinate and unexplained delay in producing seized contraband and failure to establish safe custody entitled the accused to the benefit of doubt, resulting in acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted; bail bond cancelled and accused set at liberty.

Vannathan Veettil Cheeyayi Vs Excise Inspector — 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

SATURDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/15TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2534 of 2003 ( )

¶6

--------------------------------CRL.A 11/1998 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-1), KASARAGOD CC 446/1996 of J.M.F.C.-II,HOSDRUG

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

VANNATHAN VEETTIL CHEEYEYI AGED 67 YEARS, W/O.VANNATHAN VEETTIL KELU RESIDING AT KATTIPOIL KINANOOR VILLAGE HOSDRUG TALUK

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.M.THAMBAN

¶10

SMT.T.SUDHAMANI

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶12

THE EXCISE INSPECTOR NILESHWAR EXCISE RANGE.

¶13

THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI.ABDUL SHUKOOR

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶17

¶18

Crl.R.P. No.2534 of 2003

¶19

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6^th day of August 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The accused in C.C.No.446 of 1996 on the files of the

¶22

court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class -II, Hosdurg

¶23

filed this revision petition challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 58 of

¶24

the Abkari Act.

¶25

The learned counsel for the appellant is not

¶26

ready to argue the matter stating that he has no instructions. Therefore, this Court appointed the learned Advocate Sri. V.C. Sarath as amicus curiae . Heard Shri.V.C.Sharath, the

¶27

Crl.RP 2534/03

¶28

: 2 :

¶29

learned amicus curiae and Shri.Abdul Shukoor, the learned Public Prosecutor,.

¶30

The prosecution allegation is that on 3.5.1996 at about 11.30 a.m., the revision petitioner was found carrying three litres of illicit arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

¶31

Before the trial court, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exts.P1 to P3 were marked for the prosecution, besides identifying MO1. No evidence was adduced on the side of the revision petitioner.

¶32

PW1 was an independent witness, who did not support the prosecution case. PW2 was the Excise Guard who stated about the seizure of the contraband and the arrest of the revision petitioner in accordance with the

¶33

Crl.RP 2534/03

¶34

: 3 :

¶35

prosecution case. PW3 was the Excise Inspector, who filed the final report before the court.

¶36

The learned amicus curiae has argued that even though the occurrence was on 3.5.1996, the contraband articles and the sample were produced before the court only on 6.6.1996 and in the said circumstances, the revision petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt. The court below had recorded that the sample and the contraband article were produced before the court on 6.6.1996. However, the property list appended to the records would show that the contraband article and the sample were produced before the court only on 6.6.1996. The evidence of PW3 would also show that the contraband article and the sample were produced before the court only on

¶37

Crl.RP 2534/03

¶38

: 4 :

¶39

6.6.1996. No explanation was given by the prosecution as to why there was inordinate delay in producing the contraband and the sample before the court. There is also no evidence with regard to the safe custody of the sample till its production before the court on 6.6.1996. Since there was inordinate and unexplained delay in producing the sample before the court, there cannot be any guarantee that the sample produced before the court and analysed in the laboratory was the sample drawn from the contraband seized from the revision petitioner, particularly when there is no evidence regarding the safe custody of the sample till its production before the court. In the said circumstances, the revision petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

¶40

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed,

¶41

Crl.RP 2534/03

¶42

: 5 :

¶43

setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the

¶44

courts below under Section 58 of the Abkari Act and the revision petitioner is acquitted for the said offence. The bail bond of the revision petitioner stands cancelled and the

¶45

revision petitioner is set at liberty.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶48

dl/.6.8.2016

¶49

// True Copy //

¶50

PA to Judge

Vannathan Veettil Cheeyayi v. Excise Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vannathan Veettil Cheeyayi v. Excise Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Anand Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Vs State of Kerala

Kanchana Vs State of Kerala

Babu Vs State of Kerala

Abdulkareem Vs the State of Kerala

Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala