Allowed

Sasi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Jul 2019CRL.A/141/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal against conviction under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. The High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant holding that the non-production of the forwarding note for laboratory samples broke the chain of evidence, preventing proof of tamper-proof despatch and linking the analyzed results to the seized contraband.

What did the court decide?

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

Sasi 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.141 of 2007

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 80/2005 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

APPELLANT/S/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶8

SASI

¶9

S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, ULLOORMUGHAL COLONY, PAZHAKULAM PADINJARE MURI, PALLICKAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH

¶11

RESPONDENT/S/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

PP SRI. BINEESH , AMICUS CURIAE SMT. MANJUSHA

¶14

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

¶15

CRL.A.No.141 of 2007

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the

¶19

court below under Section 8 (2) of the Abkari Act.

¶20

The prosecution allegation is that on 02.05.2003

¶21

at about 6.00 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of 9 litres of arrack in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

¶22

The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that he has no instruction from his client. Therefore, this Court has appointed Adv. Smt. Manjusha as

¶23

Amicus Curiae to argue the case for the appellant.

¶24

Heard the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned

¶25

Public Prosecutor.

¶26

The learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that

¶27

¶28

CRL.A.No.141 of 2007

¶29

since no forwarding note was produced and marked before the court, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶30

It appears that no forwarding note was produced

¶31

and marked in this case. Therefore, it has to be held that the

¶32

prosecution could not establish the tamper-proof despatch of the samples to the laboratory. In the said circumstances, 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. Since the forwarding note was not produced and marked before the court, there is no link evidence connecting the appellant with the samples analysed in the laboratory. Therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below relying on Ext.P4 certificate of chemical analysis cannot be sustained.

¶33

¶34

CRL.A.No.141 of 2007

¶35

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.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

RK/15.07.2019

Sasi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasi 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

Jackey @ Lakshmanan Vs State of Kerala

Omanakuttan Vs State of Kerala