Allowed

Edward @ Raju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Jul 2019CRL.A/344/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a criminal appeal against conviction for possession of arrack. The court quashed the conviction due to the absence of a forwarding note, which precluded establishing the chain of custody and link between the accused and the analyzed sample.

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence passed by the court below are set aside; the appellant is acquitted; and the bail bond is discharged.

Edward @ Raju Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

CRL.A.No.344 of 2007

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 1896/2003 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOLLAM DATED 02-02-2007

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 83/2001 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , SASTHAMCOTTA

¶8

APPELLANT/S/ACCUSED:

¶9

EDWARD @ RAJU S/O PARTHOSE, VIMALABHAVANAM, VALIYAPADAM, WEST KALLADA VILLAGE,, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/S/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRSENTED BY SUB EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, SASTHAMCOTTA THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK,PP

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CRL.A.No.344 of 2007

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the

¶19

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

¶20

The prosecution allegation is that on 09.04.1999 at about 8.00 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of

¶21

4 litres of arrack in contravention of the provisions of the

¶22

Abkari Act.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

The learned Counsel for the appellant has

¶25

submitted that since no forwarding note was produced and marked before the court, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶26

It appears that no forwarding note was produced and marked before the court. Therefore, it has to be held that

¶27

the prosecution could not establish the tamper-proof

¶28

¶29

CRL.A.No.344 of 2007

¶30

despatch of the sample to the laboratory. Consequently, 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 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.P4 certificate of chemical analysis, cannot be sustained.

¶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

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

RK/23.07.2019

Edward @ Raju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Edward @ Raju 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

C.Anil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Chandrashekharan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Balakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Vijayakumary,D/O. Thamarakshi, Vs State of Kerala

T.O.Varghese Vs Geetha Babu

N.Joseph Emmanuvel Vs K.R.Prasad