Allowed

Parameswaran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Oct 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/2931/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the revision petition, acquitting the accused of prohibited liquor possession. The court held that without a marked forwarding note and specimen seal impression, the prosecution failed to prove the chain of custody of the seized sample, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; conviction and sentence under Section 8(2) of Abkari Act set aside; accused acquitted and set at liberty.

Parameswaran Vs State of Kerala — 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

MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/2ND KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2931 of 2010 ( )

¶6

CRL.A 278/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, PATHANAMTHITTA SC 441/2004 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

PARAMESWARAN, S/O.KUNJURAMAN, KARIMANTHODU, THEKKUTHODU MURI, THANNITHODU VILLAGE.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

THE S.I.OF POLICE, THANNITHODU POLICE STATION.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI.C.K.PRASAD

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶16

- - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No.2931 of 2010

¶17

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24^th day of October 2016

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The revision petitioner was found guilty under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act concurrently by the courts below.

¶20

Heard.

¶21

The prosecution allegation is that on 24.2.2003 at

¶22

2.15 p.m., the revision petitioner was found in possession of 3½ litres of illicit arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

¶23

Before the trial court, PW1 to PW5 were examined and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked for the prosecution, besides

¶24

Crl.R.P.2931/2010

¶25

: 2 :

¶26

identifying MO1 and MO2. DW1 was examined and

¶27

Ext.D1 was marked for the revision petitioner.

¶28

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has

¶29

argued that since no Forwarding Note was marked in this case, there cannot be any guarantee that the sample analysed in the laboratory was the sample drawn from the contraband seized from the revision petitioner and consequently, the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below cannot be sustained.

¶30

In Prakasan and another v. State of Kerala [2016

¶31

(1) KLD 311], the court held thus:-

¶32

“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 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

¶33

Crl.R.P.2931/2010

¶34

: 3 :

¶35

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.”

¶36

In this case, no Forwarding Note was marked before the Court. No Forwarding Note is also available with the records. Thus, it is seen that no Forwarding Note was produced and marked before the court, to prove the tamperproof despatch of the sample to the laboratory for analysis.

¶37

Crl.R.P.2931/2010

¶38

: 4 :

¶39

In the said circumstances, there cannot be any guarantee that the sample produced before the court and examined in the laboratory was the sample drawn from the contraband seized from the revision petitioner and consequently, the revision petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶40

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed, 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

¶41

is set at liberty.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶44

dl/24.10.2016

¶45

// True Copy //

¶46

PA to Judge

Parameswaran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parameswaran v. State of Kerala

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

Antony Manuel Amaresh @ Jeny Vs State of Kerala

Chirukandan Vs State of Kerala

Jacob M.Raphael Vs State of Kerala

Kandambeth Chandran Vs Ibrahim @ Ibrahimkutty V.V.

Sobhana Vs State of Kerala and Another

Baby @Thomas Vs State of Kerala