Allowed

Balachandran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Jul 2019CRL.A/558/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the criminal appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. The Court acquitted the appellant because the prosecution failed to produce a forwarding note, thereby failing to establish that the analysed sample was tamper-proof and properly linked to the appellant.

What did the court decide?

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

Balachandran 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

FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

CRL.A.No.558 of 2007

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 1349/2002 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTARAKKARA DATED 15-03-2007

¶7

APPELLANT/S/ACCUSED:

¶8

BALACHANDRAN

¶9

S/O KRISHNAN, MUKOLUVILA VEEDU, S.N.PURAM MURI,, PAVITHRESWARAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT/S/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK,PP

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CRL.A.No.558 of 2007

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the

¶19

court below under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act.

¶20

The prosecution allegation is that on 07.01.1999 at about 1.20 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of 600 ml of arrack in contravention of the provisions of the

¶21

Abkari Act.

¶22

Heard.

¶23

The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued

¶24

that since no forwarding note was produced and marked

¶25

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

¶26

It appears that no forwarding note was produced and marked before the court. Therefore, it has to be held that the prosecution could not establish the tamper-proof despatch of the sample to the laboratory. Consequently, there

¶27

¶28

CRL.A.No.558 of 2007

¶29

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. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below, relying on Ext.P7 certificate of chemical analysis, cannot be sustained.

¶30

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.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

RK/26.07.2019

Balachandran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balachandran 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

Radhika Vs Dysp

Abhilash @ Kannan. Vs the State of Kerala

Hariprasad Vs State of Kerala

Cicily Vs S.I. of Police

Venugopal Vs State of Kerala

Mohanan Vs State of Kerala