High Court allowed criminal appeal against conviction under Kerala Abkari Act. Court quashed conviction and sentence holding that the trial was vitiated as the detecting officer conducted the entire investigation and was the prominent witness, relying on Mohanlal v. State of Punjab.
Conviction and sentence in SC 277/2002 stood set aside.
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 P.UBAID
WEDNESDAY,THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 10TH MAGHA, 1940
CRL.A.No. 524 of 2008
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 277/2002 of SPECIAL COURT FOR ABKARI ACT CASES, KOTTARAKKARA DATED 06-02-2008
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CP 97/2000 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III, PUNALUR
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
BHASKARAN, S/O THAMPI, MUKALUVILAVEEDU, CHETHADI MURI, MELILA VILLAGE.
BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.HARISH ABRAHAM SRI.JOHN.M.GEORGE SRI.K.T.THOMAS SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA THROUGH S.I OF POLICE, KUNNICODU, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
SRI SANTHOSH PETER (PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.No. 524 of 2008
2
JUDGMENT
The conviction and sentence under Section 55 (a) and (i) of the Kerala Abkari Act (“the Act”) in S.C. No. 277/2002 of the Special Additional Sessions Court for the trial of Abkari Act Cases, Kottarakkara, is under challenge in this appeal. The accused therein faced trial on the allegation that at about 5.30 p.m on 24.02.2000, he was found possessing five litres of arrack in a can of ten litres capacity. The offence was detected by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kunnicodu. He arrested the accused on the spot and seized the contraband article as per a mahazar. The Sub Inspector himself registered the case, conducted investigation and submitted final report in court.
CRL.A.No. 524 of 2008
3
Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 06.02.2008, the accused has come up in appeal.
CRL.A.No. 524 of 2008
4
was taken as sample in a bottle of 375 ml capacity and it was sealed at the spot of detection itself. The report of chemical analysis shows that a sample of 375 ml was received at the laboratory. PW3 has no explanation for this. When cross examined on this aspect, he stated that he had taken only 200 ml as sample and he does not know how a sample of 375 ml happened to be received at the laboratory. This is a suspicious circumstance. If the sample received at the laboratory contained 375 ml, it cannot be the sample collected by PW1 from the liquid contained in the can seized from the possession of the accused. Thus, there is nothing to show that the liquid contained in the plastic can seized by the police was identified as arrack. The accused is entitled for acquittal on this ground itself.
In the result, this appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence in SC 277/2002 of the Special Additional Sessions Court, for the
CRL.A.No. 524 of 2008
5
trial of Abkari Cases, Kottarakkara will stand set aside.
Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE
sru
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the prosecution case was vitiated by the entire investigation being conducted by the detecting officer who was also a prominent witness.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohanlal v. state of PunjabApplied¶30
Mohanlal v. state of Punjab [ AIR 2018 SC 3853] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
BHASKARAN, S/O THAMPI, MUKALUVILAVEEDU, CHETHADI MURI, MELILA VILLAGE.
STATE OF KERALA THROUGH S.I OF POLICE, KUNNICODU, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
P.UBAID
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
