Allowed

Suresh Kumar, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Aug 2019CRL.A/618/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this criminal appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed under Sections 55(b), 55(g) and 8(2) of the Abkari Act. The acquittal resulted because the prosecution failed to produce the forwarding note required to prove tamper-proof despatch of seized samples to the laboratory, breaking the chain of evidence.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed; the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

Suresh Kumar, 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 01ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

CRL.A.No.618 of 2007

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 301/2005 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 13-03-2007

¶7

APPELLANT/S:

¶8

SURESH KUMAR,

¶9

S/O. CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, KAVUMKAL VEEDU, BUNGLAM KADAVU,, VADASSERIKKARA MURI AND VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA,

¶13

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

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK,PP

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Case No. Crl.A 618/07

¶18

-2-

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the

¶21

court below under Sections 55(b), 55(g) and 8(2) of the

¶22

Abkari Act.

¶23

The prosecution allegation is that on 15.11.2003 at about 2.10 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of four litres of arrack and 70 litres of wash, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued

¶26

that since no forwarding note was produced and marked

¶27

before the court in this case, the appellant is entitled to

¶28

benefit of doubt.

¶29

It appears that the forwarding note was not

¶30

produced and marked before the court in this case.

¶31

Therefore, it has to be held that the prosecution could not

¶32

establish the tamper-proof despatch of the samples to the

¶33

Case No. Crl.A 618/07 -3-

¶34

laboratory. In the said circumstances, there cannot be any

¶35

guarantee that the samples produced before the court and analysed in the laboratory were the samples 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 samples analysed in the laboratory. Therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below, relying on Ext.P15 Certificate of Chemical Analysis, cannot be sustained and consequently, I set aside the same.

¶36

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

¶37

below and the appellant stands acquitted. The bail bond of the appellant stands discharged.

¶38

¶39

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE .

¶40

dl/

Suresh Kumar, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar, 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

Nishaf.M.M Vs State of Kerala

Kiran Babu Vs the State of Kerala

Adima Raju Vs State of Kerala

Vijayan, Vs State of Kerala

Rajagopal@ Sasi, Vs State of Kerala

Viswanadha Pillai Vs State of Kerala