Allowed

Pradeep v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Feb 2017Crl.MC/832/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two accused faced charges under the Abkari Act for providing toddy with excessive alcohol content. The High Court observed conflicting chemical analysis reports showing alcohol levels both above and below the statutory limit. Relying on precedent, the Court held that doubtful reports could not support a conviction. It exercised its inherent powers to quash the criminal proceedings as they served n

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case was allowed; all further proceedings in Crime No. 127/2016 against the petitioners stood quashed.

Pradeep Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/26TH MAGHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 832 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 127/2016 OF KUNNAMKULAM EXCISE RANGE OFFICE , TRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2:

¶8

1. PRADEEP, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KOLLANCHERRY HOUSE, MAMPULLY DESOM,KARAMUKKU VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶9

2. GEORGE, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, THADIKKARAN HOUSE, PUTHENVELIKKARA VILLAGE,PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

BY SRI.T.R.RANJITH,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 832 of 2017 ()

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

ANNEXURE A PHOTOCOPY OF THE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS CERTIFICATE DATED 9.9.2016 ISSUED BY THE ASST. CHEMICAL EXAMINER TO GOVT. OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶19

ANNEXURE B PHOTOCOPY OF THE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS CERTIFICATE DATED 5.1.2017 ISSUED BY THE ASST. CHEMICAL EXAMINER TO GOVT. OF KERALA, KOZHIKODE

¶20

ANNEXURE C PHOTOCOPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CR.NO.127/2016 FILED BEFORE THE JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHAVAKKAD

¶21

ANNEXURE D PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.2.2013 IN CRL.M.C.NO.769/2013 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶22

ANNEXURE E PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.8.2014 IN CRL.M.C.NO.3761/2014 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶23

ANNEXURE F PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.2.2016 IN CRL.M.C.NO.8055/2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

R.AV

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

Crl.M.C.No.832 of 2017

¶30

Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2017

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2 in crime No.127/2016 of Kunnamkulam excise range for offence punishable under sections 56(b) and 57(a) of the Abkari Act.

¶33

The second petitioner is the licensee of the toddy shop and the second petitioner is the employee. On an inspection conducted at the toddy shop on 20.07.2016, samples were taken and sent for analysis. It was revealed that the first sample contained ethyl alcohol, 9.38% v/v. This is evidenced by Annexure-A certificate. Evidently, this was higher than the prescribed statutory limit. Thereafter, the second sample was forwarded and the report received is Annexure-B. It shows that the sample contained 6.43% v/v of ethyl alcohol, which is less than the prescribed statutory limit.

¶34

The contention of the petitioner herein is that in the light of this divergent reports, one in favour of the prosecution and the other one in favour of the accused.

¶35

Crl.M.C.No.832 of 2017 2

¶36

No court can sustain conviction on the basis of such doubtful reports. Hence it was contended that no purpose will be served by prosecuting the petitioners herein with these materials on record. This court in [ Joshi George Vs. State of Kerala (2011(4) KHC 818)] and [Rajappan & Another Vs. State of kerala 2012(2) KHC 657)] , have consistently held accordingly. This was followed by this court in later decisions evidenced by Annexures-B to F. In the light of above, I find that no purpose will be served by prosecuting the petitioners herein with the aid of these materials on record. Hence I am inclined to invoke the jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶37

Hence, Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings in Crime No.127/2016 of Kunnamkulam Excise Range, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad against the petitioners stand quashed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶40

//True Copy//

¶41

R.AV

¶42

PA to Judge

Pradeep v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep 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

Arif Vs State of Kerala

Sheeja Vs State of Kerala

B.Abdulla Vs State of Kerala

Thankappan Vs State of Kerala

Jnanesh Bangera Vs the State of Kerala

Shibu Mathew Vs State of Kerala