Allowed

Sulochana v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jul 2019CRL.A/595/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal challenges a conviction and sentence under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act for possession of arrack. The High Court allowed the appeal, acquitting the appellant because no evidence proved the sample sent to the laboratory was drawn in a tamper-proof manner.

What did the court decide?

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

Sulochana 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

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

CRL.A.No.595 of 2006

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 414/2001 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, TRIVANDRUM DATED 23.02.2006

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CP 240/2000 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,NEDUMANGAD

¶8

APPELLANT:

¶9

SULOCHANA, D/O RAJAMMA, THADATHERIKATHU VEEDU, VANDAKKAL, CHITTUVEETTU MURI,, UZHAMALAKKAL VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

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

¶13

SRI.E.C.BINEESH,PP

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CRL.A.No.595 of 2006 2

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the

¶18

court below under Section 8 (2) of the Abkari Act.

¶19

The prosecution allegation is that on 27.06.2000 at

¶20

about 4 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of 1½ litres of arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

¶21

Heard.

¶22

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued

¶23

that since there is no evidence regarding the drawing of sample and sending of the same to the laboratory in a tamper-proof condition, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶24

It appears from the evidence of PW1 and PW2 that the contraband as such was seized from the spot. Ext. P5 is the property list which would show that a can having a capacity of 2½ litres containing about 1½ litres of arrack was produced before the Court. Ext. P7 is the certificate of

¶25

CRL.A.No.595 of 2006 3

¶26

chemical analysis, which would show that one sealed bottle containing 150 ml of the sample was received in the laboratory. This would show that the sample was drawn from the contraband after it was produced before the court. However, there is absolutely no evidence before the court with regard to the drawing of the sample.

¶27

This Court in Sasidharan Vs. State of Kerala [2017 (1) KLT 720] held that without the link evidence of actual sampling by the concerned clerk of the Court by drawing the sample from the can and sending the same in a sealed packet to the Chemical Examiner with the specimen seal sent separately for tamper-proof despatch, the prosecution cannot be held to have brought home the offence against the accused. In this case, the thondi clerk of the court, who had drawn the sample was not examined. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence before the Court with regard to the drawing of the sample and sending the same to the laboratory in a tamper-proof manner. Consequently, it has to be held that the prosecution could not establish the tamper-proof despatch of the sample to the laboratory. In

¶28

CRL.A.No.595 of 2006 4

¶29

the said circumstances, there cannot be any guarantee that the sample analysed in the laboratory was the sample drawn from the contraband seized from the appellant. Consequently, there is no link evidence connecting the appellant with the sample analysed in the laboratory. In the said circumstances, 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 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

kmd

Sulochana v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulochana 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subran, S/O. Manikutty Vs State of Kerala

James Vs State of Kerala

Renuka Vs State of Kerala

P.Surendran Vs Elizebath Daniel

Sasikala Vs State of Kerala

Narayanan Vs State of Kerala