Allowed

Sugunan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jun 2019CRL.A/1062/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal, acquitting appellants convicted under the Abkari Act. Conviction was set aside due to unexplained delay in producing seized contraband and sample, lack of safe custody evidence, and absence of a forwarding note proving tamper-proof dispatch to the laboratory.

What did the court decide?

Appellants acquitted; conviction and sentence set aside; bail bonds discharged.

Sugunan Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

CRL.A.No.1062 of 2004

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 19/2000 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOLLAM DATED 02-07-2004

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 101/1998 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, KOLLAM

¶8

APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:

¶9

1 SUGUNAN S/O SUBRAMANIAN, SUGUNALAYATHIL, PANTHRANDUMURI CHERRI,, MAYYANAD, KOLLAM.

¶10

2 MANILAL S/O.JANARDHANAN BASU VILASOM VEEDU, AAYIRAMTHENGU CHERRI,, MAYYANAD, KOLLAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTIYAM,, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

-2-

¶17

CRL.A.No.1062 of 2004

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The appellants were convicted and sentenced by

¶20

the court below under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act.

¶21

The prosecution allegation is that on 06.08.1998 at about 5.30 pm, the appellants were found in possession of 44 polythene packets of illicit arrack, each packet having a capacity of 100ml each, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

¶22

In the trial, PW1 to PW6 were examined and Exts.P1 to P7 series were marked for the prosecution,

¶23

besides identifying MO 1. No evidence was adduced on the side of the defence.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

The learned counsel for the appellants has

¶26

argued that even though the contraband was seized on 06.08.1998, the contraband and the sample were

¶27

-3-

¶28

CRL.A.No.1062 of 2004

¶29

produced before the court only on 21.08.1998 and in the said circumstances, the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶30

It appears from Ext.P3 property list that the contraband articles and the sample were produced before the court only on 21.08.1998. PW5 stated that he produced the sample and the contraband before the court on the same day. However, since there was shortage of space in the court, the court returned the same. However, Ext.P3 does not contain any endorsement to the effect that the sample and the contraband were produced before the court on any day prior to 21.08.1998. Therefore, the explanation given by PW5 for the delay in producing the contraband articles and the sample before the court, cannot be correct. It appears that no convincing explanation is

¶31

-4-

¶32

CRL.A.No.1062 of 2004

¶33

available with regard to the delayed production of the contraband before the court. There is also no evidence with regard to the safe custody of the contraband and the sample till their production before the court. Since there was long and unexplained delay from 06.08.1998 to 21.08.1998 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 appellants, particularly when there is no evidence to prove the safe custody of the sample till its production before the court. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶34

It is also to be noted that the forwarding note was not produced or marked in this case. Since the

¶35

-5-

¶36

CRL.A.No.1062 of 2004

¶37

forwarding note was not produced and marked, the prosecution could not establish the tamper proof despatch of the sample to the laboratory and on that reason also, 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 appellants. In view of the above reason also, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt.

¶38

In the result, this criminal appeal stands allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the court below and the appellants stand acquitted. The bail bonds of the appellants stand discharged.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Nkr/21.06.19

Sugunan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sugunan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sreeraj Vs State of Kerala

Latha Chandran Vs State of Kerala

Mohanan Vs State of Kerala

Karthi Vs State of Kerala

Ravi Vs Excise Range Officer and Another

Sunny Vs State of Kerala