Allowed

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

Kerala HC23 Jul 2019CRL.A/353/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court acquitted the appellant convicted under Section 58 of the Abkari Act for possessing arrack. The court set aside the conviction and sentence held that without a forwarding note, the prosecution failed to establish tamper-proof despatch of the sample to the laboratory, thereby severing the link between the appellant and the analysed evidence.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted; bail bond discharged.

Vijayakumary,D/O. Thamarakshi, Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | 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.353 of 2007

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 1146/2001 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,NEYYATTINKARA DATED 03-01-2007

¶7

APPELLANT/S/ACCUSED:

¶8

VIJAYAKUMARY, D/O. THAMARAKSHI,POTTAKUZHY VEEDU,, ARAYYOOR DESOM, CHENKAL VILLAGE,, NEYYATTINKARA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

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

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SMT.V.SREEJA,PP

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

CRL.A.No.353 of 2007

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the

¶19

court below under Section 58 of the Abkari Act.

¶20

The prosecution allegation is that on 06.07.2000

¶21

at about 2.00 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of

¶22

3 litres of arrack in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that since no forwarding note was produced and

¶25

marked before the court, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶26

It appears that no forwarding note was produced

¶27

and marked before the court. Therefore, it has to be held that

¶28

the prosecution could not establish the tamper-proof

¶29

despatch of the sample to the laboratory. Consequently, there

¶30

¶31

CRL.A.No.353 of 2007

¶32

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.P6 certificate of chemical analysis, cannot be sustained.

¶33

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.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

RK/23.07.2019

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayakumary,D/O. Thamarakshi, 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

Edward @ Raju Vs State of Kerala

T.O.Varghese Vs Geetha Babu

N.Joseph Emmanuvel Vs K.R.Prasad