Allowed

Omanakuttan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Jul 2019CRL.A/1228/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal from a conviction under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act for possessing arrack, the High Court held that the absence of a forwarding note prevented the prosecution from proving tamper-proof despatch of the sample. Consequently, no link evidence existed, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence were set aside and the appellant was acquitted. The bail bond of the appellant was discharged.

Omanakuttan Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

CRL.A.No.1228 of 2007

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 795/2002 of SPECIAL COURT FOR ABKARI ACT CASES, KOTTARAKKARA DATED 19-06-2007

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 128/1999 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III, PUNALUR

¶8

APPELLANT/S/ACCUSED:

¶9

OMANAKUTTAN

¶10

S/O. VASUDEVAN, NADAYYATHU MELATHIL VEEDU, NEAR VILAKKUVATTOM MURI, VALACODU VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT/S/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

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

¶14

PP SRI BINEESH

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

CRL.A.No.1228 of 2007

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the court below under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act.

¶20

The prosecution allegation is that on 16.09.1999

¶21

at about 7.50 a.m., the appellant was found in possession of

¶22

700 ml of arrack in contravention of the provisions of the

¶23

Abkari Act.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that since no forwarding note was produced and marked before the court, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶26

It appears that no forwarding note was produced and marked before the court. Therefore, it has to be held that the prosecution could not establish the tamper-proof despatch of the sample to the laboratory. In the said

¶27

¶28

CRL.A.No.1228 of 2007

¶29

circumstances, there cannot be any guarantee that the sample 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 analysed in the laboratory. In the said circumstances, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below relying on Ext.P5 certificate of chemical analysis cannot be sustained

¶30

In the result, this criminal 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.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

RK/15.07.2019

Omanakuttan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omanakuttan 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

Sreenivasan @ Subramanian Vs State of Kerala

Raji R. Nair Vs State of Kerala

C.K.Alikoya Vs State of Kerala

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala

Sasi Vs State of Kerala

Jackey @ Lakshmanan Vs State of Kerala