The High Court allowed the criminal appeal against conviction under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act for possession of liquor. The acquittal was based on the inordinate and unexplained delay in producing the contraband sample before the court, which destroyed the chain of custody.
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 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1941
CRL.A.No.1353 of 2006
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 662/2004 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-II), THODUPUZHA
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 24/2003 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, DEVIKULAM
APPELLANT/S:
CHITHRAKANI, S/O KARUPPUSWAMY, ANACKALPETTY JUNCTION, ANACKALPETTY KARA, MARAYOOR VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.SOORAJ ELANJICKAL
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARAYOOR, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.E.C.BINEESH,PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.No.1353 of 2006
-2-
JUDGMENT
The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the court below under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act.
2. The prosecution allegation is that on 20.10.2001 at about 6.40 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of 2.535 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor for the purpose of sale in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.
3. Heard.
4. The learned counsel for the
appellant has argued that even though the seizure was effected on 20.10.2001, the sample and the contraband were produced
CRL.A.No.1353 of 2006
before the court only on 27.12.2001 and in the said circumstances, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.
5. Ext.P3 is the property list, which would show that the contraband and the sample were produced before the court only on 27.12.2001. PW1 produced the contraband
and the sample before the court. PW1 stated that the contraband and the sample were received by the court on 27.12.2001. No explanation was given by PW1 for the inordinate delay in producing the sample before the court. There is also no evidence with regard to the safe custody of the sample till its production before the
CRL.A.No.1353 of 2006
court. Since there was long and unexplained delay from 20.10.2001 to 27.12.2001 in
producing the sample before the court, there cannot be any guarantee that the sample produced before the court and analyzed in the laboratory was the sample drawn from the contraband seized from the appellant, particularly when there is no evidence with regard to the safe custody of the sample till its production before the court. In the said circumstances, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.
In the result, this appeal stands allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the court below and the
CRL.A.No.1353 of 2006
-5-
appellant stands acquitted. The bail bond
of the appellant stands discharged.
Sd/-
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE
STK
//TRUE COPY//
//P.A. TO JUDGE//
2 issues framed by the court
Whether any guarantee can be ensured that the sample produced before the court after an inordinate delay is the sample drawn from the contraband seized from the appellant.
Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt due to the long and unexplained delay in producing the sample.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
CHITHRAKANI, S/O KARUPPUSWAMY
STATE OF KERALA
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
