The High Court allowed a criminal appeal where the appellant, convicted under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act for possessing arrack, was acquitted due to the absence of a forwarding note, which prevented the prosecution from proving the chain of custody of the seized sample.
Conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted; 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
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1941
CRL.A.No.272 of 2008
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 382/2003 of III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM DATED 11-01-2008
APPELLANT/S/ACCUSED:
MOHANAN S/O DIVAKARAN, KOOTTUMTHARAKIZHAKKETHARAYIL VEEDU,, ADINAD SOUTH MURI, ADINAD VILLAGE,, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/S/RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE RANGE,, KARUNAGAPPALLY THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
(CRIME NO.14/99 OF, KARUNAGAPPALLY EXCISE RANGE).
SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK,PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.No.272 of 2008
2
JUDGMENT
The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the
court below under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act.
at about 6.30 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of
750 ml of arrack in contravention of the provisions of the
Abkari Act.
that since no forwarding note was produced and marked
before the court, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.
and marked before the court. Therefore, it has to be held that
the prosecution could not establish the tamper-proof despatch of the sample to the laboratory. Therefore, there
3
CRL.A.No.272 of 2008
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. Since no forwarding note was produced and marked before the court, 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.P7 certificate of chemical analysis, cannot be sustained.
In the result, this criminal 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.
Sd/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
JUDGE
RK/26.07.2019
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the conviction and sentence are sustainable when no forwarding note was produced or marked to prove tamper-proof despatch of the seized sample to the laboratory.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohanans/o Divakaran
State of Kerala
B.Sudheendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
