Allowed

Pradeep v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Jun 2019CRL.A/448/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for manufacturing arrack. It held that unexplained delay in producing seized samples and the absence of a forwarding note precluded the prosecution from proving tamperproof despatch, entitling appellants to acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Setting aside conviction and sentence; appellants acquitted; bail bonds discharged.

Pradeep Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

CRL.A.No.448 of 2008

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 524/2001 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KOTTARAKKARA DATED 26-02-2008

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 209/2000 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,KOTTARAKKARA

¶8

APPELLANT/S/A1 AND A2:

¶9

1 PRADEEP (A1) S/O THULASEEDHARAN, MUNDAKKAL VEEDU, PADINJATTINKARA MURI,, VELIYAM VILLAGE.

¶10

2 VALSALA (A2) D/O.KAMALAKSHI, CHANGAVILA THUNDIL VEEDU, PADINJATTINKARA MURI, VELIYAM VILLAGE.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SRI.C.P.ANIL RAJ

¶12

RESPONDENT/S/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOYAPPALLY, POLICE STATION.

¶14

SRI.E.C.BINEESH,PP

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

CRL.A.No.448 of 2008

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The appellants were convicted and sentenced by the

¶20

court below under Sections 55 (a), (b) and (g) of the Abkari Act.

¶21

The prosecution allegation is that on 06.11.1999 at about 10.40 a.m., the appellants were found in possession

¶22

of 20 litres of arrack and 25 litres of wash and implements

¶23

for manufacturing arrack in their residential building in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

The learned Counsel for the appellants has

¶26

argued that even though the incident in this case was on 06.11.1999, the contraband article and the sample were

¶27

received by the court only on 24.11.1999 and in the said

¶28

CRL.A.No.448 of 2008

¶29

¶30

circumstances, the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶31

Ext.P6 is the property list, which would show that

¶32

the contraband article and the sample were received by the court on 24.11.1999. PW4 produced the contraband article before the court. However, PW4 did not state the reason for the delay in producing the contraband and the sample before the court. There is also no evidence with regard to the safe custody of the contraband and the sample till their production before the court. Since there was unexplained delay from 06.11.1999 to 24.11.1999 in producing the sample before the court, 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 appellants, particularly when there is no evidence with regard to the safe custody of the sample till

¶33

¶34

CRL.A.No.448 of 2008

¶35

its production before the court. In the said circumstances,

¶36

the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶37

It is also to be noted that no forwarding note was

¶38

produced and marked in this case. Therefore, it has to be held that the prosecution could not establish the tamperproof despatch 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 appellants. Since the forwarding note was not produced and marked, there is no link evidence to connect the appellants with the sample analysed in the laboratory. In view of the above reason also, the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶39

In the result, this criminal appeal stands allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the

¶40

CRL.A.No.448 of 2008

¶41

¶42

court below and the appellants stand acquitted. The bail bonds of the appellants stand discharged.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

RK/25.06.2019

Pradeep v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep 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

Subran Vs State of Kerala

Komalan Vs State of Kerala

Sivanandan Vs the State of Kerala

Chithrakani Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Vs State of Kerala

Mathew Vs State of Kerala