Allowed

Omanakuttan Pillai v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jul 2019CRL.A/178/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence under the Abkari Act for possessing arrack. The High Court allowed the appeal, acquitting the appellant because the prosecution failed to produce a forwarding note, breaking the chain of custody for the seized sample.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, appellant acquitted and bail bond discharged.

Omanakuttan Pillai 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

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

CRL.A.No.178 of 2007

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 893/2002 of SPECIAL COURT FOR ABKARI ACT CASES, KOTTARAKKARA DATED 29-12-2006

¶7

APPELLANT/S/ACCUSED:

¶8

OMANAKUTTAN PILLAI S/O. CHANDRAN PILLAI, VADAKKE THUNDIL VEEDU, ERUMPANANGADU,, EZHUKONE VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) SRI.P.SREEKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT/S/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

SRI.E.C.BINEESH,PP

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CRL.A.No.178 of 2007

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the

¶19

court below under Sections 55 (a) and (i) of the Abkari Act.

¶20

The prosecution allegation is that on 21.10.2000 at about 5.25 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of

¶21

4½ litres of arrack in contravention of the provisions of the

¶22

Abkari Act.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

The learned Counsel for the appellant has

¶25

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

¶26

It appears that no forwarding note was produced

¶27

and marked before the court. Therefore, it has to be held that

¶28

the prosecution could not establish the tamper-proof

¶29

¶30

CRL.A.No.178 of 2007

¶31

despatch of the sample to the laboratory. Consequently, there cannot be any guarantee that the sample produced before the court and analysed in the laboratory was the sample drawn

¶32

from the contraband seized from the appellant. Since no forwarding note was produced and marked before the court, 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.P6 certificate of chemical analysis cannot be sustained.

¶33

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.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

RK/16.07.2019

Omanakuttan Pillai v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omanakuttan Pillai 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

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala

Sasi Vs State of Kerala

Jackey @ Lakshmanan Vs State of Kerala

Thulasi Vs State of Kerala

Kannadasan @ Kandankutty Vs State of Kerala

Sajith Vs State of Kerala