Allowed

Kusan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Jul 2019CRL.A/195/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. The Court allowed the appeal, acquitting the appellant because the prosecution failed to produce and mark the forwarding note required to establish the tamper-proof dispatch of the seized samples to the laboratory for analysis.

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence were set aside; the appellant was acquitted and the bail bond was discharged.

Kusan 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 18TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

CRL.A.No.195 of 2007

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 532/2004 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, ALAPPUZHA DATED 27-12-2006

¶7

APPELLANT/S:

¶8

KUSAN, S/O GOPALAN, THACHAYIL KIZHAKKETHIL VEETTIL, VATTACHAL MURI, ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

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

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SMT.V.SREEJA,PP

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CRL.A.No.195 of 2007

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The appellant was convicted and

¶18

sentenced by the court below under Section

¶19

8(2) of the Abkari Act.

¶20

2. The prosecution allegation is

¶21

that on 7.2.2003 at about 7.10 p.m., the

¶22

appellant was found in possession of 1.4

¶23

litres of arrack in contravention of the

¶24

provisions of the Abkari Act.

¶25

3. Heard.

¶26

4. The learned counsel for the

¶27

appellant has argued that since no

¶28

forwarding note was produced and marked

¶29

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

¶30

5. It appears that no forwarding note

¶31

CRL.A.No.195 of 2007

¶32

-3-

¶33

was produced and marked before the Court in this case. Therefore, it has to be held that the prosecution could not establish the tamper-proof dispatch of the samples to the laboratory. Consequently, there cannot be any guarantee that the samples produced before the court and analysed in the laboratory were the samples 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 connecting the appellant with the samples analyzed in the laboratory. In the said circumstances, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below, relying on Ext.P7 certificate of chemical analysis

¶34

CRL.A.No.195 of 2007

¶35

-4-

¶36

cannot be sustained.

¶37

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.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶40

STK

¶41

//TRUE COPY// //P.A. TO JUDGE//

Kusan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kusan 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

Ravikumar Vs the State of Kerala

Peyoos Vs State of Kerala

Yasodha Vs State of Kerala

Lekshmanan @ Thampi Vs State of Kerala

Raghavan Vs State of Kerala

Kunjumon Vs State of Kerala