Revision petition challenging conviction under the Kerala Abkari Act for transporting illicit liquor. Court held prosecution vitiated due to delayed production of contraband, missing evidence, and lack of seal specimens, granting acquittal.
Revision petitioners acquitted; conviction and sentence set aside; acquitted from prosecution.
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 P.UBAID
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1939
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1263 of 2005 (C)
CRA 74/2000 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-II, MAVELIKKARA DATED
CC 87/1997 of J.M.F.C.-II, CHENGANNUR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED -
ROY JOSE, S/O.VARGHESE JOSE, NJODIYAPALLIL VEEDU, PERUMPALLOOR MURI, ARAKUZHA VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.V.MANOJ KUMAR
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT -
STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, CHENGANNUR RANGE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R BY SMT.SREEJA V., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-12-2017, ALONG WITH CRL.R.P.NO.1416/2005, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
rkj
P.UBAID, J.
================================ Crl.R.P.Nos.1263 & 1416 of 2005
================================ Dated this the 13th day of December, 2017
ORDER
The revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.1416 of 2005
is the first accused in C.C.No.87 of 1997 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Chengannur, and the revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.1263 of 2005 is the second accused therein. They faced prosecution on the allegation that at about 11.45 p.m. on 16.11.1996, they were found transporting huge quantity of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in the Tempo trax No.KL- 1D-1695. The huge quantity of liquor was illicitly brought from the State of Karnataka for sale here. The offence was detected by the Excise Inspector of the Chengannur Excise Range. He arrested the accused on the spot, and seized the quantity of liquor as per a mahazar. After investigation, the Excise Inspector submitted final report in Court. During investigation, the owner of the vehicle was arraigned as third accused, and final report was filed against him also. During trial when the third accused remained consistently absent, the case against him was split up and re-filed.
Crl.R.P.Nos.1263 & 1416 of 2005
2
to the charge framed against them under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act ('the Act'). The prosecution examined four witnesses in the trial court, and proved Exts.P1 to P4 documents. MO1 property was also identified during trial. The accused did not adduce any evidence in defence.
Crl.R.P.Nos.1263 & 1416 of 2005
3
pointed out two serious infirmities in this case. One is that the contraband articles including the sample bottles were not produced in Court immediately after detection, and the other is that the Investigating Officer was not examined during trial.
Crl.R.P.Nos.1263 & 1416 of 2005
4
evidence regarding sampling process but he did not state anything regarding the investigation. The Investigating Officer is not examined in this case.
Crl.R.P.Nos.1263 & 1416 of 2005
5
mahazar. In evidence also, he did not state anything about such seal. The specimen is not of the seal must be produced in Court. This is also an infirmity in this case. Thus, I find that the prosecution is vitiated by certain infirmities. In such a situation, the factual aspects need not be probed into. The accused is entitled for the benefit of the infirmities affecting the prosecution case.
In the result, these revision petitions are allowed. The revision petitioners herein are not found guilty of the offence under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act, and they are acquitted of the said offence in revision. Accordingly, the conviction and the sentence against them in C.C.No.87 of 1997 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Chengannur, confirmed in appeal by the Court of Session in Crl.Appeal Nos.74 and 75 of 2000 will stand set aside, and the revision petitioner will stand released from prosecution. The amount, if any, remitted by the revision petitioners in the court below as a condition for suspension of sentence will be released.
Sd/- P.UBAID, JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
rkj
P.A. TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the failure to produce contraband immediately and the absence of the investigating officer vitiate the prosecution.
Whether delayed production of seized liquor specimens and sealing defects render the conviction unsustainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
ROY JOSE
STATE OF KERALA
P.UBAID
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
