Single judge acquitted appellant convicted under Abkari Act Section 8(2) for possessing arrack. Court held that lack of forwarding note prevented proving tamper-proof transfer of samples, severing the link between the accused and laboratory analysis, thus violating benefit of doubt.
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
THURSDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1941
CRL.A.No.655 of 2007
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 290/2006 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), KOTTAYAM DATED 27-03-2007
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
RAJAGOPAL@ SASI, S/O.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, ASHA BHAVAN,, VELLAVOOR VILLAGE,CHANGANACHERRY TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, (CRIME NO.33/03, OF EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY).
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.V.SREEJA,PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.No.655 of 2007
-2-
JUDGMENT
The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the
court below under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act.
23.12.2003 at about 7.30 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of 2.5 litres of arrack in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.
argued that since no forwarding note was produced and
marked before the court, the appellant is entitled to benefit
of doubt.
and 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 samples to the laboratory.
Consequently, there cannot be any guarantee that the
CRL.A.No.655 of 2007
-3-
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. In the said circumstances, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below, relying on Ext.P9 certificate of chemical analysis, cannot be sustained.
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
SJ
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the conviction and sentence can be sustained when no forwarding note was produced to establish the tamper-proof despatch of seized samples to the laboratory.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
RAJAGOPAL@ SASI
STATE OF KERALA
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
