High Court of Kerala allowed criminal appeal in drug possession case. Court acquitted appellant due to lack of forwarding note and unexplained delay in producing samples, which created reasonable doubt regarding chain of custody.
Conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted; bail bond discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1941
CRL.A.No.638 OF 2007
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 73/2006 OF SPECIAL COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), THODUPUZHA
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 109/2002 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , KATTAPPANA
APPELLANT/S/ACCUSED:
SASI,
S/O. KRISHNAN KUTTY, KANNIVELTHARA HOUSE, 9TH ACRE,, UPPUTHARA, UPPUTHARA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU
RESPONDENT/S/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE UPPUTHARA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK,PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.No.638 OF 2007
2
JUDGMENT
The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the court
below under Sections 8(2) and 55(a) of the Abkari Act.
700 ml of arrack for the purpose of sale in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.
that since no forwarding note was produced and marked before the court, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.
marked before the court in this case. Therefore, it has to be held that the prosecution could not establish the tamper-proof despatch of the sample to the laboratory. Consequently, there cannot be any guarantee that the samples produced before the
3
CRL.A.No.638 OF 2007
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.P10 certificate of chemical analysis, cannot be sustained.
this case was on 18.02.2002, the samples and the contraband were produced before the court only on 11.04.2002. PW4 produced the contraband and the samples before the court. PW4 did not state any reason for the delayed production of the contraband and the samples before the court. The delay as such is not always fatal to the prosecution case. However, if there is unexplained delay, the same is not doubt, fatal to the prosecution case. In this case, there was long and unexplained delay from 18.02.2002 to 11.04.2002 in producing the contraband and the
4
CRL.A.No.638 OF 2007
samples before the court. Therefore, there cannot be any guarantee that the samples produced before the court and analysed in the laboratory were the samples drawn from the contraband seized from the appellant. For the said reason also, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.
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.
Sd/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE
RK/07.08.2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether conviction can be sustained without a forwarding note establishing tamper-proof despatch of samples to the laboratory.
Whether long unexplained delay in producing contraband allows the appellant benefit of doubt.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
SASI
STATE OF KERALA
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
