Allowed

C.K.Alikoya v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jul 2019CRL.A/1252/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Court for possession of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The acquittal was based on unexplained delay and lack of evidence regarding safe custody of the seized samples.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted; bail bond discharged.

C.K.Alikoya Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

CRL.A.No.1252 of 2005

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 221/2002 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOZHIKODE DATED 15-07-2005

¶7

APPELLANT/S/ACCUSED:

¶8

C.K.ALIKOYA S/O.MOIDEEN KOYA,, KURIKKAN VEETTIL, CHELAVOOR AMSOM DESOM,, KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/S/RESPONDENT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶12

SRI. BINEESH, PP

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

CRL.A.No.1252 of 2005

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

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

¶18

The prosecution allegation is that on 31.05.2000

¶19

at about 8.00 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of 15 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

¶20

Heard.

¶21

The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued

¶22

that since there was long and unexplained delay in producing the contraband and the samples before the court,

¶23

the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶24

It appears that even though the incident in this

¶25

case was on 31.05.2000, the contraband article and the

¶26

samples were produced before the court only on

¶27

¶28

CRL.A.No.1252 of 2005

¶29

07.06.2000. PW2 stated that he produced the contraband article and the samples before the court on 02.06.2000. However, there was no thondi clerk to receive the same. Even though PW2 stated that he produced the contraband article and the samples before the court on 02.06.2000, PW2 himself admitted that there is no document to prove the same. If PW2 had produced the contraband article and the samples before the court on 02.06.2019, as stated by PW2, there would have been an endorsement on Ext.P3 property list in this regard. However, Ext.P3 would clearly show that the contraband and the samples were produced before the court only on 07.06.2000. There is also no evidence with regard to the safe custody of the contraband and the samples till their production before the court. The delay as such is not always fatal. However, even if the delay is for a day, if it is not explained, the same is fatal to the

¶30

CRL.A.No.1252 of 2005

¶31

¶32

prosecution case.

¶33

In this case, there was an unexplained delay from 31.05.2000 to 07.06.2000 in producing the samples before the court. The said delay was not explained by the prosecution. Since there was long and unexplained delay from 31.05.2000 to 07.06.2000 in producing the samples before the court, there cannot be any guarantee that the samples produced before the court and analysed in the laboratory were the samples drawn from the contraband seized from the appellant, particularly when there is no evidence with regard to the safe custody of the samples till their production before the court. In the said circumstances, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below on the strength of Ext.P5 certificate of chemical analysis cannot be sustained.

¶34

CRL.A.No.1252 of 2005

¶35

¶36

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.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

RK/12.07.2019

C.K.Alikoya v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.K.Alikoya 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

P.Surendran Vs Elizebath Daniel

Sulochana Vs State of Kerala

Sasikala Vs State of Kerala

Sreenivasan @ Subramanian Vs State of Kerala

Raji R. Nair Vs State of Kerala

Prabhakaran Vs State of Kerala