Allowed

Subran, S/O. Manikutty v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jul 2019CRL.A/142/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant was convicted under Section 58 of the Abkari Act for possession of arrack. The court acquitted the appellant, holding that the failure of the prosecution to produce and mark the forwarding note prevented proving the tamper-proof despatch of the sample to the lab, breaking the link between the appellant and the analyzed sample.

What did the court decide?

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

Subran, S/O. Manikutty 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 10TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

CRL.A.No.142 of 2004

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 96/2002 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR DATED 07-01-2004

¶7

APPELLANT/S:

¶8

SUBRAN, S/O. MANIKUTTY ERINJERI HOUSE, KIZHAKKE KODALI DESOM.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.VIJAYA BANU (SR) SMT.P.MAYA SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.P.M.RAFIQ

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

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

¶12

BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI.E.C.BINEESH,PP

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Case No. Crl.A.142/04

¶17

-2-

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the

¶20

court below under Section 58 of the Abkari Act.

¶21

The prosecution allegation is that on 25.6.1999 at

¶22

about 1 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of three litres of arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the

¶23

Abkari Act.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since no forwarding note was produced and marked

¶26

before the court, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶27

It appears that the forwarding note was not

¶28

produced and marked before the court. Therefore, it

¶29

has to be held that the prosecution could not prove the

¶30

tamper-proof despatch of the sample to the laboratory. In

¶31

Case No. Crl.A.142/04 -3-

¶32

the said circumstances, there cannot be any guarantee that the sample produced before the court and analysed in the laboratory was the sample 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 to connect the appellant with the sample analysed in the laboratory. In view of the above reason, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below relying on Ext.P9 certificate of Chemical Analysis, cannot be sustained and consequently, I set aside the same.

¶33

In the result, this Appeal stands allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the court

¶34

below and the appellant stands acquitted. The bail bond of the appellant stands discharged.

¶35

¶36

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE .

¶37

dl/

Subran, S/O. Manikutty v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subran, S/O. Manikutty 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

Saju Bin Salim, Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Vipin Mohan Vs State of Kerala

James Vs State of Kerala

Renuka Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Vs State of Kerala