Allowed

Narayanan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jul 2019CRL.A/1834/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a criminal appeal against a conviction under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act for possession of arrack. The Court held that the prosecution's failure to explain a delay of one year and ten months in investigation and filing the final report entitled the appellant to benefit of doubt, resulting in acquittal.

What did the court decide?

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

Narayanan 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

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

CRL.A.No.1834 of 2006

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 492/2005 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), PALAKKAD DATED 03-07-2006

¶7

APPELLANT:

¶8

NARAYANAN, S/O VELAN, PARAKKAL VEEDU,VADUKATHARA DESOM, PARALI-II VILLAGE.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

2 EXCISE INSPECTOR PARALI EXCISE RANGE.

¶13

SRI.E.C.BINEESH,PP

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CRL.A.No.1834 of 2006

¶16

:2:

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the court below under Section 8 (2) of the Abkari Act.

¶19

The prosecution allegation is that on 24.03.2003 at about 12.30 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of 1½ litre of arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

¶20

Heard.

¶21

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since there was inordinate delay in conducting the investigation and filing the final report before the Court, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. The learned counsel has relied on the decision of this Court in Krishan H. Vs. State of Kerala [2015 (1) KHC 822] to buttress his argument.

¶22

In Krishnan [supra], this Court held that the inordinate delay in conducting the investigation, in the absence of sufficient explanation, is fatal to the prosecution case. In this case, the incident was on 24.03.2013.

¶23

:3:

¶24

CRL.A.No.1834 of 2006

¶25

However, the investigation was conducted and the final report was filed before the court only on 22.01.2005, which was after a period of one year and ten months from the date of seizure. No explanation was given by the prosecution for the long delay in conducting the investigation and filing the final report before the Court. Since no explanation was given by the prosecution for the long delay in conducting the investigation and filing the final report before the court, the same is, no doubt, fatal to the prosecution case, particularly when the quantity of the contraband seized was only 1 ½ litres. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶26

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.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

kmd

Narayanan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayanan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subran, S/O. Manikutty Vs State of Kerala

James Vs State of Kerala

Renuka Vs State of Kerala

P.Surendran Vs Elizebath Daniel

Sulochana Vs State of Kerala

Sasikala Vs State of Kerala