Allowed

Radhamani Amma v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jul 2019CRL.A/314/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal against conviction under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act for possession of arrack. The High Court acquitted the appellant because the prosecution failed to produce a forwarding note, creating a gap in the chain of evidence linking the seized sample to the lab analysis, rendering the conviction unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Apellant acquitted, conviction and sentence set aside, bail bond discharged.

Radhamani Amma Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶3

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2019 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1941

¶4

CRL.A.No.314 of 2007

¶5

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 20/2001 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (ABKARI CASES) KOTTARAKKARA DATED 15-01-2007

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 206/2000 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,KOTTARAKKARA

¶7

APPELLANT/S:

¶8

RADHAMANI AMMA

¶9

W/O. SIVASANKARA PILLAI, KINNARULLAKALA VEEDU,KOTTATHALA KIZHAKKEMURI,, PUTHOOR VILLAGE,KOTTARAKKARA TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.D.JAYACHANDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

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

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

CRL.A.No.314 of 2007

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

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

¶19

The prosecution allegation is that on 29-07-1998 at about 5 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of 10 litres of arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

¶20

Heard.

¶21

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since no forwarding note was produced and marked before the Court, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶22

It appears that no forwarding note 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 despatch of the sample to the Laboratory. Therefore, there cannot be any guarantee that the sample produced before the Court and analysed

¶23

CRL.A.No.314 of 2007

¶24

-3-

¶25

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. P6 certificate of chemical analysis, cannot be sustained.

¶26

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.

¶27

Sd/-B.Sudheendra Kumar, Judge.

¶28

Ani/

¶29

/true copy/

Radhamani Amma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhamani Amma 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

Vipinkumar Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf.a Vs State of Kerala

Al Ameen Vs State of Kerala

C.Anil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Chandrashekharan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Balakrishnan Vs State of Kerala