The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition, acquitting the accused. It held that inordinate, unexplained delay in producing the seized sample, coupled with lack of evidence regarding safe custody, entitled the accused to the benefit of doubt.
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted; bail bond cancelled.
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
SATURDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/15TH SRAVANA, 1938
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3094 of 2004 ( )
CRL.A 374/2001 of ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-1), KOZHIKODE CC 1102/1997 of J.M.F.C.-I,KOYILANDY
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED::
BABU, S/O. UNNEERIKUTTY,
KUNNATHARA AMSOM, KANNUR DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT::
STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI.ABDUL SHUKOOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
Crl.R.P. No.3094 of 2004
O R D E R
The accused in C.C.No.1102 of 1997 on the files of
the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Koyilandy filed this revision petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by
the courts below under Section 58 of the Abkari Act.
counsel for the revision petitioner and Shri.Abdul Shukoor,
the learned Public Prosecutor.
p.m., the revision petitioner was found in possession of five
Crl.R.P.3094/2004
: 2 :
litres of illicit arrack, in contravention of the provisions of
the Abkari Act.
Crl.R.P.3094/2004
: 3 :
completing the investigation, he filed the final report before the court. PW3 was the Preventive Officer, who witnessed the occurrence. PW3 also stated about the seizure of the contraband and arrest of the revision petitioner in tune with the evidence of PW2.
Crl.R.P.3094/2004
: 4 :
before the court only on 11.9.1995. PW2 stated that he had sent the sample to the court on 1.9.1995. However, PW2 further admitted that the sample and the contraband were received by the court only on 11.9.1995. There is absolutely no evidence with regard to the safe custody of the sample and the contraband from 1.9.1995 to 11.9.1995. Nobody was examined to prove the safe custody of the sample till its production before the court on 11.9.l995. No reason was also stated by the prosecution as to why there occurred delay in producing the sample before the court. 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 examined in the laboratory was the sample drawn from the contraband seized from the revision petitioner, particularly
Crl.R.P.3094/2004
: 5 :
when there is no evidence with regard to the safe custody
of the sample till its production before the court and
consequently, the revision petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt.
In the result, this revision petition stands allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the 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 he
is set at liberty.
Sd/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE
dl/.6.8.2016
// True Copy //
PA to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the benefit of doubt applies when there is inordinate and unexplained delay in producing the seized sample before the court without evidence of safe custody?
Whether the conviction under Section 58 of the Abkari Act should be set aside due to loss of chain of evidence regarding the seized contraband?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
BABU
STATE OF KERALA
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
