Allowed

Vinodan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jul 2019CRL.A/126/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal against conviction under the Abkari Act, the Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant. The conviction was set aside due to an unexplained delay in producing seized liquor samples and the absence of a sample seal on the forwarding note, which broke the chain of custody.

What did the court decide?

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

Vinodan 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

CRL.A.No.126 of 2005

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 306/2003 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOZHIKODE DATED 13-12-2004

¶7

APPELLANT/S:

¶8

VINODAN, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, PULINTHANATH, KOORACHUNDU AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.TOMY JOHN VETTATH

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI.E.C.BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.C.SHARATH,AMICUS CURIAE

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

CRL.A.126/2005

JUDGMENT

The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the

¶17

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

¶18

The prosecution allegation is that on 21.09.2000 at about 1.20 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of 6 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor for the purpose of sale in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

¶19

There is no representation for the appellant. Therefore, this Court appointed Adv.V.C.Sharath as Amicus Curiae to argue the case for the appellant.

¶20

Heard the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶21

The learned Amicus Ciriae has argued that since there was inordinate and unexplained delay in producing the contraband and samples before the court, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶22

The incident in this case was on 21.09.2000. Ext.P6 property list would show that the contraband

¶23

CRL.A.126/2005

¶24

¶25

articles and the samples were produced before the Court only on 06.11.2000. PW1 produced the contraband and the samples before the Court. The evidence of PW1 would also show that the contraband and the samples were produced before the court on 06.11.2000. PW1 stated that he was having other official engagements and hence there occurred delay in producing the contraband and the samples before the court. The above explanation given by PW1 cannot be said to be a reasonable and plausible explanation to justify the long delay from 21.09.2000 to 06.11.2000 in producing the contraband and the samples before the Court. Since there was no proper explanation for the delay from 21.09.2000 to 06.11.2000 in producing the samples before the court, there cannot be any guarantee that the samples produced before the court and analyzed in the laboratory were the samples drawn from the contraband seized from the appellant. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to

CRL.A.126/2005

benefit of doubt.

It is also to be noted that no sample seal was

¶30

affixed on Ext.P7 copy of the forwarding note. This Court in Krishnan.H v. State [2015 (1) KHC 822] held that the absence of sample seal at the space provided for the same in the copy of the Forwarding Note is sufficient reason for presuming that the sample seal was not affixed on the original Forwarding Note.

¶31

In this case, no evidence was adduced by the prosecution to show that the sample seal was affixed on the original forwarding note. Therefore, it has to be held that the prosecution could not establish the tamper-proof dispatch of the samples to the laboratory. Therefore, there cannot be any link evidence connecting the appellant with the samples analyzed in the laboratory. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below, relying on Ext.P8 certificate of chemical analysis, cannot be sustained.

¶32

CRL.A.126/2005

¶33

¶34

In the result, this criminal appeal stands

¶35

allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed

¶36

by the court below and the appellant stands acquitted.

¶37

The bail bond of the appellant stands discharged.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶40

¶41

JUDGE

Vinodan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinodan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thomas K.George Vs State of Kerala

Nizar Vs State of Kerala

Radha Vs State of Kerala

Veluchamy Kounder Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Ramachandran Vs the State of Kerala