Allowed

Baiju S/O. Thankappan, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Jun 2019CRL.A/397/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a criminal appeal against conviction under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. Finding that the prosecution failed to produce a forwarding note to establish tamper-proof dispatch of the sample, the court held the link between the appellant and the chemical analysis report was broken, granting acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, appellant acquitted, bail bond discharged.

Baiju S/O. Thankappan, 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 5TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

CRL.A.No.397 of 2007

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 870/2001 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), KOLLAM DATED 25-01-2007

¶7

APPELLANT/S:

¶8

BAIJU S/O. THANKAPPAN, THUNDIL VEEDU, THEKKEVILA CHERI, MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION THROUGH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI.E.C.BINEESH,PP

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CRL.A.No.397 of 2007

¶16

-2-

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The appellant was convicted and

¶19

sentenced by the court below under Section

¶20

8(2) of the Abkari Act.

¶21

2. The prosecution allegation is

¶22

that on 29.11.1999 at about 9.00 p.m., the

¶23

appellant was found in possession of 4

¶24

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

¶25

3. Heard.

¶26

4. The learned counsel for the

¶27

appellant has argued that since no forwarding note was produced and marked before the court, the tamper-proof dispatch

¶28

of the sample to the laboratory could not be

¶29

CRL.A.No.397 of 2007

¶30

-3-

¶31

established and consequently, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶32

5. It appears that no forwarding note

¶33

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 dispatch of the sample to the laboratory. 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, there is no link evidence to connect the appellant with the sample analyzed in the laboratory.

¶34

In the said circumstances, it is not safe to

¶35

CRL.A.No.397 of 2007

¶36

-4-

¶37

convict the appellant on the basis of Ext.P6 chemical analysis report. Consequently, the

¶38

conviction and sentence passed by the court below cannot be sustained.

¶39

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.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶42

STK

¶43

//TRUE COPY//

¶44

//P.A. TO JUDGE//

Baiju S/O. Thankappan, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baiju S/O. Thankappan, 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

Pradeep Vs State of Kerala

Chithrakani Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Vs State of Kerala

Laila, D/O. Thankamma, Vs State of Kerala

Chandran Pillai, S/O. Kuttan Pillai, Vs State of Kerala

Gangan @ Korembeth Gangadharan Vs State of Kerala