In CRL.A.No.1082 of 2006 against sentences under the Abkari Act, the High Court set aside the conviction. The court held that the absence of a forwarding note precluded establishing tamper-proof dispatch of the liquor sample to the laboratory.
Conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted; bail bond discharged.
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
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF JULY 2019 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1941
CRL.A.No.1082 of 2006
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 493/2004 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), TRIVANDRUM DATED 12-05-2006
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 36/2003 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,ATTINGAL
APPELLANT/S:
NIZAR,
S/O. MEERA SAHIB, PUTHUVAL COLONIYILL PUTHENVEEDU, KADINAMKULAM DESOM, KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE.
BY ADVS. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SMT.DEEPTHY.S.NATH SRI.PRABHU VIJAYAKUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.E.C.BINEESH,PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.No.1082 of 2006
JUDGMENT
The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the court below under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act.
2. The prosecution allegation is
that on 15.02.2002 at 5.45 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of 4.125
litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in contravention of the provisions of the
Abkari Act.
3. Heard.
4. The learned counsel for the
appellant has submitted that since no forwarding note was produced and marked in
this case, the appellant is entitled to
CRL.A.No.1082 of 2006
-3-
benefit of doubt.
5. It appears that no forwarding note
was produced and marked before the Court in this case. Therefore, it has to be held that the prosecution could not establish the tamper-proof dispatch of the sample to the laboratory. Therefore, 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 appellant. Since no forwarding note was produced and marked before the court, there is no link evidence connecting the appellant with the sample analyzed in the laboratory. Therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below on the
CRL.A.No.1082 of 2006
-4-
strength of Ext.P3 chemical analysis report cannot be sustained and consequently, I set aside the same.
In the result, this appeal stands allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the court below and the appellant stands acquitted. The bail bond of the appellant stands discharged.
Sd/-
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE
STK
//TRUE COPY//
//P.A. TO JUDGE//
Nizar
State of Kerala
B. Sudheendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
