The Kerala High Court allowed the criminal appeal against conviction under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. The Court held that unexplained delay and lack of evidence regarding safe custody broke the chain of evidence, necessitating acquittal.
Conviction and sentence set aside; Appellant acquiesced; 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.185 of 2007
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 858/2005 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK – I, PALAKKAD DATED 18-10-2006
APPELLANT/S:
SAJITH,
S/O VELAYUDHAN KADAKUTHITHAN VEEDU, CHELLIKKAD, KANNADI. PALAKKAD.
BY ADVS. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTAYI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. REP.BY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
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.185 of 2007
JUDGMENT
The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the court below under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act.
-: 3 :-
CRL.A.No.185 of 2007
contraband and the sample before the Court on 6-11-2002. PW1 did not state any reason for the delayed production of the contraband and the sample before the Court. There is also no evidence with regard to the safe custody of the contraband and the sample till their production before the Court. Since there was unexplained delay from 20-08-2002 to 6-11-2002 in producing the sample before the Court, 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, particularly when there is no evidence to prove the safe custody of the sample till its production before the Court. Therefore, 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. P5 certificate of chemical analysis cannot be sustained.
In the result, this appeal stands allowed, setting aside
-: 4 :-
CRL.A.No.185 of 2007
the conviction and sentence passed by the court below and the appellant stands acquitted. The bail bond of the appellant stands discharged.
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2019.
Sd/-B.Sudheendra Kumar, Judge.
Ani/
/true copy/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the conviction and sentence under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act can be sustained when there was unexplained delay and no evidence proving safe custody of the seized sample between the inciden
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sajith
State of Kerala
B.Sudheendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
