Crl.A.1309 of 2006. The High Court allowed the criminal appeal against conviction under Section 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act for possession of arrack. The court set aside the conviction due to lack of forwarding note and failure to establish tamper-proof despatch of the seized sample.
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.1309 of 2006
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 1034/2001 of ADDITIONAL S.C.TRIAL OF ABKARI ACT CASES,NEYYATTINKARA DATED 06-06-2006
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 321/2000 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,NEYYATTINKARA
APPELLANT/S/ACCUSED:
SANTHA
D/O.SULOCHANA, KUNNUMVILA LEKSHAMVEEDU COLONY,, CHENKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA.
BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE
RESPONDENT/S/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, AMARAVILA EXCISE RANGE.
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.1309 of 2006
2
JUDGMENT
The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the
court below under Section 58 of the Abkari Act.
of 2 litres of arrack in contravention of the provisions of the
Abkari Act.
that since no forwarding note was produced and marked before the court, the appellant is entitled to benefit of
doubt.
and produced before the court. This Court in Sasidharan v.
State of Kerala [2007 (1) KLT 720] held that without the link
CRL.A.No.1309 of 2006
3
evidence of actual sampling by the concerned clerk of the court by drawing the sample from the can and sending the same in a sealed packet to the chemical examiner with a specimen seal sent separately for tamper-proof despatch, the prosecution cannot be held to have brought home the offence against the appellant.
4
CRL.A.No.1309 of 2006
sample analysed in the laboratory was the sample drawn from the contraband seized from the appellant. Since the forwarding note was not produced and marked, 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.P7 certificate of chemical analysis, cannot be sustained. Consequently, I set aside the same.
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.
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
JUDGE
RK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether conviction under Section 58 of the Abkari Act can be sustained without a forwarding note and tamper-proof despatch evidence for the chemical analysis sample.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sasidharan vs. State of KeralaFollowed¶30
Sasidharan v. State of Kerala [2007 (1) KLT 720]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Santhab
State of Kerala represented by the Excise Inspector, Amaravila Excise Range
B.Sudheendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
