Without reasoning, set aside conviction and sentence for possession of illicit arrack due to unexplained delay in producing contraband samples, resulting in acquittal and discharge of bail bond.
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 16TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1941
CRL.A.No.179 of 2007
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 1097/2005 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, PALAKKAD DATED 22-10-2006
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
KANNADASAN @ KANDANKUTTY S/O.PAZHANI, MOOCHIKKAL, PANANGATTIRI KOLLENGODE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST.
BY ADVS. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,, KOLLENGODE, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
SRI.E.C.BINEESH,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.A.No.179 of 2007
JUDGMENT
The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the court below under Sections 55(a) and 8(2) of the
Abkari Act.
found in possession of 11 litres of illicit arrack, in
contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.
contraband and the samples were received in the court
-3-
CRL.A.No.179 of 2007
only on 28.11.2002, even though the seizure was effected on 19.11.2002. PW1 produced the contraband and the samples before the court. The evidence of PW1 would also show that the samples and the contraband were produced before the court only on 28.11.2002. PW1 stated that he was having other official engagements and hence there occurred delay in producing the contraband and the samples before the court. The said explanation given by PW1 cannot be said to be a reasonable and plausible explanation, justifying the delay from 19.11.2002 to 28.11.2002 in producing the contraband and the samples before the court. Since there was no proper explanation for the long delay from 19.11.2002 to 28.11.2002 in producing the samples before the court, there cannot be any guarantee that the samples produced before
-4-
CRL.A.No.179 of 2007
the court and analysed in the laboratory were the samples drawn from the contraband seized from the appellant. In the said circumstances, there is no link evidence connecting the appellant with the samples analysed in laboratory. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below, relying on Ext.P7 certificate of chemical analysis, cannot be sustained.
In the result, this 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.
Sd/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
JUDGE
Nkr/17.07.19
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the unexplained delay in producing seized samples deprives them of evidentiary value and requires acquittal.
Whether the conviction under the Abkari Act can be sustained without a link between the accused and the analysed samples.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kannadasan
State of Kerala
B.Sudheendhra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
