Allowed

Ravi v. Excise Range Officer and Another

Kerala HC21 Jun 2019CRL.A/2347/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala addressed an appeal against conviction under the Abkari Act for possession of arrack. Setting aside the lower court conviction and sentence due to a fatal, unexplained delay of over two years and five months in investigation and report filing, the court acquitted the appellant and discharged the bail bond.

What did the court decide?

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

Ravi Vs Excise Range Officer and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

CRL.A.No.2347 of 2008

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 521/2006 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOZHIKODE

¶7

APPELLANT/S:

¶8

RAVI, S/O RAGHAVAN, VATTAKKAVIL, KAKKADAMPOPYIL DESOM, KOODARANHI AMSOM, KOZHIKODE.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 EXCISE RANGE INSPECTOR KUNNAMANGALAM.

¶12

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,,

¶13

ERNAKULAM.

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SMT.V.SREEJA,PP

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Case No. Crl.A 2347/08

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the

¶20

court below under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act.

¶21

Heard.

¶22

The prosecution allegation is that on 29.8.2003 at

¶23

about 6 a.m., the appellant was found in possession of one litre of arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the

¶24

Abkari Act.

¶25

In the trial, PW1 to PW6 were examined and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked for the prosecution, besides

¶26

identifying MO1.

¶27

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that even though the incident in this case was on 29.8.2003, the final report was filed before the court only on

¶28

14.2.2006, after completing the investigation and hence the

¶29

appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. It appears that the

¶30

Case No. Crl.A 2347/08

¶31

-3-

¶32

statements of witnesses were recorded only in January 2006, in respect of the offence which occurred on 29.8.2003. This Court in Krishnan H. v. State [2015(1) KHC 822] held that the inordinate delay in conducting the investigation, in the absence of explanation, is fatal to the prosecution case. In this case, no explanation was given by the prosecution with regard to the delay in conducting the investigation and filing the final report. In the said circumstances, the long delay of more than two years and five months in conducting the investigation and filing the final report is fatal to the prosecution case, particularly when the contraband involved in this case was only one litre of arrack. In view of the above reason, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below cannot be sustained. Consequently, I set aside the same.

¶33

Case No. Crl.A 2347/08

¶34

-4-

¶35

In the result, this appeal stands allowed, setting

¶36

aside the conviction and sentence passed by the court below and the appellant stands acquitted. The bail bond of the appellant stands discharged .

¶37

¶38

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE .

¶39

dl/

Ravi v. Excise Range Officer and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi v. Excise Range Officer and Another

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

Sreeraj Vs State of Kerala

Latha Chandran Vs State of Kerala

Mohanan Vs State of Kerala

Karthi Vs State of Kerala

Sugunan Vs State of Kerala

Sunny Vs State of Kerala