The High Court allowed an appeal against conviction under the Abkari Act. The court held that the non-production of a forwarding note for the seized arrack samples prevented the prosecution from establishing a chain of custody, entitling the appellant to the benefit of doubt.
Conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted and discharged on bail bond.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1941
CRL.A.No.430 of 2005
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 153/2003 of III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM DATED 09-02-2005
APPELLANT/S:
SIVANANDAN
S/O KRISHAN,KRISHNA BHAVANAM, THEKKUMMURI KIZHAKKU,, THAZHAVA VILLAGE, KURUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL
RESPONDENT/S:
THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE EXCISE RANGE INSPECTOR,, KARUNAGAPPALLY EXCISE RANGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.E.C.BINEESH,PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Case No.Crl.A.430/05
JUDGMENT
The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the court below under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act.
about 12.15 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of 40 packets of arrack, each packet having a capacity of 150 ml. each, in contravention of the provisions of the
Abkari Act.
and marked before the court. Therefore, the tamper-proof
Case No.Crl.A.430/05
despatch of the sample to the laboratory could not be established by the prosecution. In the said circumstances, 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 to connect the appellant with the sample analysed in the laboratory. For the said reasons, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.
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.
sd B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE .
dl/25.6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt due to non-production of forwarding note for the seized arrack samples.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SIVANANDAN
THE STATE OF KERALA
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
