Allowed

Laila, D/O. Thankamma, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Jun 2019CRL.A/246/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal against the conviction for possession of contraband under the Abkari Act. The court held that evidence regarding the drawing and sealing of the sample for chemical analysis was missing, granting the appellant the benefit of doubt.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted; bail bond discharged.

Laila, D/O. Thankamma, Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 5TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

CRL.A.No.246 of 2007

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 953/2005 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, TRIVANDRUM

¶7

APPELLANT/S:

¶8

LAILA, D/O. THANKAMMA, ULLAYEZHATHUVILAKOM VEEDU, KARIKKAKOM WARD, KADAKAMPALLI VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

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

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI.E.C.BINEESH,PP

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CRL.A.No.246 of 2007

¶16

-2-

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

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

¶19

2. The prosecution allegation is that on

¶20

6.11.1999 at about 8.00 a.m., the appellant

¶21

was found in possession of 5 litres of arrack in contravention of the provisions of

¶22

the Abkari Act.

¶23

3. Heard.

¶24

4. In the trial, PW1 to PW6 were

¶25

examined and Exts.P1 to P9 series were marked for the prosecution, besides identifying MO1. No evidence was adduced from the side of the defence.

¶26

5. The learned counsel for the appellant

¶27

CRL.A.No.246 of 2007

¶28

-3-

¶29

has submitted that since there is no

¶30

evidence with regard to the drawing of the sample and forwarding the same to the laboratory, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶31

6. It is borne out from the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4 that the contraband as such

¶32

was seized from the spot by PW1 and thereafter, the said contraband was produced before PW4, who in turn produced the contraband before the court. Ext.P6 property list and the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4 would show that 5 litres of contraband in a can was produced before the court. However, Ext.P7 chemical examination

¶33

report would show that one sealed bottle

¶34

CRL.A.No.246 of 2007

¶35

-4-

¶36

containing 180 ml. of sample was received in the laboratory. This would show that the sample was drawn from the contraband after its production before the court. However, in this case, the thondy clerk, who had drawn the sample from the contraband was not examined before the court. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence with regard to the drawing of the sample and sending the same to the laboratory in a tamper-proof manner for analysis.

¶37

7. In Sasidharan v. State of Kerala

¶38

[2007 (1) KLT 720], this Court observed thus:

¶39

“Without the link evidence of actual sampling by the concerned clerk of the court by

¶40

CRL.A.No.246 of 2007

¶41

-5-

¶42

drawing sample from the can and sending the same in a sealed packet to the Chemical Examiner with a specimen seal sent separately for tamper proof despatch, the Prosecution cannot be held to have brought home the offence against the appellant.”

¶43

8. In this case, there is absolutely no evidence to prove the drawing of the sample and sending the same to the laboratory in a tamper-proof manner. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence before the court to show that the sample, which was analysed as per Ext.P7 chemical analysis report, was the sample taken from the contraband allegedly seized from the appellant. In the said

¶44

CRL.A.No.246 of 2007

¶45

circumstances, the appellant is entitled to

¶46

benefit of doubt.

¶47

In the result, this appeal stands

¶48

allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the court below and the appellant stands acquitted. The bail bond

¶49

of the appellant stands discharged.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶52

STK

¶53

//TRUE COPY//

¶54

//P.A. TO JUDGE//

Laila, D/O. Thankamma, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laila, D/O. Thankamma, 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

Pradeep Vs State of Kerala

Chithrakani Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Vs State of Kerala

Chandran Pillai, S/O. Kuttan Pillai, Vs State of Kerala

Baiju S/O. Thankappan, Vs State of Kerala

Gangan @ Korembeth Gangadharan Vs State of Kerala