Allowed

Ravikumar v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jul 2019CRL.A/697/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal challenged a conviction under the Abkari Act for possession of arrack. The High Court held that the absence of a forwarding note prevented the establishment of tamper-proof despatch of seized samples to the laboratory. Without this link evidence connecting the appellant to the analyzed samples, the conviction could not be sustained.

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence passed by the court below were set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the bail bond was discharged.

Ravikumar Vs the 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

CRL.A.No.697 of 2006

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 168/2000 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), MAVELIKKARA DATED 20-03-2006

¶7

APPELLANT/S:

¶8

RAVIKUMAR

¶9

AGED 40 YEARS S/O. GOPINATHA PANICKER, KOTTAKKATTUTHARAYIL, KAITHA THEKKUM MURI, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

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

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI.E.C.BINEESH,PP

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Case No. Crl.A 697/06

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

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 13.6.1998 at

¶21

about 7 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of

¶22

1.45 litres of arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued

¶25

that since no forwarding note was produced and marked

¶26

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

¶27

benefit of doubt.

¶28

It appears that the forwarding note was not produced and marked before the court. Therefore, it has to be held that the prosecution could not establish the

¶29

Case No. Crl.A 697/06

¶30

-3-

¶31

tamper-proof despatch of the samples to the laboratory. In the said circumstances, 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. Since no forwarding note was produced and marked before the court, there is no link evidence to connect the appellant with the samples analysed in the laboratory. Therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below relying on Ext.P5 Certificate of Chemical analysis, cannot be sustained and consequently, I set aside the same.

¶32

In the result, this 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.

¶33

¶34

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE .

¶35

dl/

Ravikumar v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravikumar 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

Thulasi Vs State of Kerala

Omanakuttan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Kannadasan @ Kandankutty Vs State of Kerala

Peyoos Vs State of Kerala

Yasodha Vs State of Kerala

V.K.Rajan Vs State of Kerala