Allowed

Chellappan, S/O.Paulo, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Aug 2019CRL.A/607/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the criminal appeal against conviction under Section 58 of the Abkari Act. The Court held that an unexplained nine-day delay in producing seized arrack destroyed the chain of evidence, rendering the conviction unsustainable, and acquitted the appellant.

What did the court decide?

The complaint was allowed; conviction and sentence were set aside; appellant acquitted; bail bond discharged.

Chellappan, S/O.Paulo, 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 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

CRL.A.No.607 OF 2007

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 994/2001 OF ADDITIONAL S.C.-TRIAL OF ABKARI ACT CASES, NEYYATTINKARA

¶7

APPELLANT/S:

¶8

CHELLAPPAN, S/O.PAULO, CHEERAMKODU KIZHAKKUMKAR PUTHEN VEEDU,, KUNNATHUKAL DESOM AND VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

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

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SMT.V.SREEJA,PP

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CRL.A.No.607 OF 2007

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the court below under Section 58 of the Abkari Act.

¶18

2. The prosecution allegation is that on

¶19

9.8.99 at about 6.00 p.m., the appellant

¶20

was found in possession of 13 litres of

¶21

arrack for the purpose of sale in contravention of the provisions of the

¶22

Abkari Act.

¶23

3. Heard.

¶24

4. The learned counsel for the

¶25

appellant has argued that since there was inordinate delay in producing the contraband before the court, the appellant is entitled

¶26

CRL.A.No.607 OF 2007

¶27

-3-

¶28

to benefit of doubt.

¶29

5. Ext.P.4 is the property list, which would show that the contraband articles

¶30

were produced before the court only on 18.8.99 even though the incident in this case was on 9.8.99. PW4 produced the

¶31

contraband before the court. PW4 stated that he produced the contraband before the court on the very same day. However, the court returned the same with a direction to

¶32

PW4 to keep it in his safe custody. However, there is absolutely no material to substantiate the said part of evidence of PW4. On the other hand, Ext.P4 property list would clearly show that the above

¶33

CRL.A.No.607 OF 2007

¶34

-4-

¶35

evidence of PW4 is not correct. PW4 further stated that till the contraband articles were produced before the court, they were kept in his safe custody. It appears from the evidence of PW4 that there is no explanation at all for the inordinate delay from 9.8.99 to 18.8.99 in producing the contraband before the court. The delay as such is not always fatal to the prosecution case. However, unexplained delay is, no doubt, fatal to the prosecution case.

¶36

6. In this case, there was unexplained delay from 9.8.99 to 18.8.99 in producing the contraband before the court. Therefore,

¶37

there cannot be any guarantee that the

¶38

CRL.A.No.607 OF 2007

¶39

-5-

¶40

contraband produced before the court was the contraband seized from the appellant. Consequently, there cannot be any guarantee that the samples analysed in the laboratory were the samples drawn from the contraband seized from the appellant. In the said circumstances, there is no link evidence connecting the appellant with the samples anlaysed in the laboratory. In the said circumstances, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below, relying on Ext.P5 certificate of chemical analysis, cannot be sustained.

¶41

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

¶42

CRL.A.No.607 OF 2007

¶43

-6-

¶44

appellant stands acquitted. The bail bond

¶45

of the appellant stands discharged.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶48

STK

¶49

//TRUE COPY//

¶50

//P.A. TO JUDGE//

Chellappan, S/O.Paulo, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chellappan, S/O.Paulo, 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

C.D.Suresh Vs State of Kerala

John Antony @ Johny, Vs State of Kerala

Soman Nair Vs the State of Kerala

Chellappan Vs State of Kerala

Mathew @ Thankachan Vs State of Kerala

Sasi,S/O. Krishnan Kutty, Vs State of Kerala