Allowed

Ramachandran v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jul 2019CRL.A/632/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court set aside the appellant's conviction and sentence for possessing arrack for sale. Relying on the long, unexplained delay between seizure and production of the sample and the lack of safe custody evidence, the court held the sample could not be guaranteed to be from the seized contraband.

What did the court decide?

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

Ramachandran Vs the 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

CRL.A.No.632 of 2005

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 352/2002 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), MANJERI DATED 28-03-2005

¶7

APPELLANT/S:

¶8

RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.UNNEERI, VELLENCHERRY HOUSE, MARUTHA, VAZHIKADAVU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S.NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,, VAZHIKADAVU POLICE STATION, THROUGH, THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI.E.C.BINEESH,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.A.632/2005

JUDGMENT

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 06.09.2000 at about 4.30 p.m, the appellant was found in possession

¶21

of 10 litres of arrack for the purpose of sale in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

¶22

Heard.

¶23

The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that since there was inordinate and unexplained

¶24

delay in producing the sample before the court, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶25

The incident in this case was on 06.09.2000.

¶26

Ext.P7 is the property list, which would show that the contraband and the sample were produced before the Court only on 27.09.2000. There was no explanation from

¶27

the side of the prosecution as to why there was inordinate

¶28

Crl.A.632/2005

¶29

¶30

delay in producing the contraband and the sample before the court. There is also no evidence with regard to the safe custody of the sample and the contraband till their production before the court. Since there was long and unexplained delay from 06.09.2000 to 27.09.2000 in producing the sample before the court, there cannot be any guarantee that the sample produced before the court and analyzed in the laboratory was the sample drawn from the contraband seized from the appellant, particularly when there is no evidence with regard to the safe custody of the sample till its production before the court. In the said circumstances, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below relying on Ext.P9 certificate of chemical analysis cannot be sustained and consequently, I set aside the same.

¶31

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

¶32

Crl.A.632/2005

¶33

¶34

court below and the appellant stands acquitted. The bail

¶35

bond of the appellant stands discharged.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶38

¶39

JUDGE

Ramachandran v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramachandran v. the 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

Thomas K.George Vs State of Kerala

Nizar Vs State of Kerala

Radha Vs State of Kerala

Vinodan Vs State of Kerala

Veluchamy Kounder Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Vs State of Kerala