Allowed

Francis v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jul 2019CRL.A/28/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an appeal against conviction under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. The court observed that the absence of a forwarding note in the case prevented the prosecution from establishing tamper-proof despatch of the sample. This lack of link evidence rendered the chemical analysis inadmissible for conviction, leading to the appellant's acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Appellant acquitted; conviction and sentence set aside; bail bond discharged.

Francis 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 04TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

CRL.A.No.28 of 2007

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 350/2006 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-III),NORTH PARAVUR DATED 28-12-2006

¶7

APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

FRANCIS S/O.ANTONY, THARAMEL HOUSE, CHERUKADAPPURAM BHAGOM, PUTHENVELIKKARA KARA, PUTHENVELIKKARA VILLAGE.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.B.BALRAJ SRI.K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

SRI.E.C.BINEESH,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

-2-

¶15

CRL.A.No.28 of 2007

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

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

¶18

The prosecution allegation is that on 17.01.2003 at about 5.45 p.m., the appellant was found

¶19

in possession of 550ml of illicit arrack, in contravention

¶20

of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

¶21

Heard.

¶22

The learned counsel for the appellant has

¶23

argued that since no forwarding note was produced and marked in this case, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶24

It appears that no forwarding note was

¶25

produced and marked in this case. Therefore, it has to

¶26

be held that the prosecution could not establish the

¶27

tamper-proof despatch of the sample to the laboratory.

¶28

-3-

¶29

CRL.A.No.28 of 2007

¶30

Therefore, 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. Since the forwarding note was not 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.P5 certificate of chemical analysis, cannot be sustained and consequently, I set aside the same.

¶31

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.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE

¶34

Nkr/04.07.19

Francis v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Francis 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

Vinodan Vs State of Kerala

Veluchamy Kounder Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf Vs State of Kerala

Santhamma Vs State of Kerala

Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala