Appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act for possession of wash for manufacturing arrack. The court acquittal the appellant due to long unexplained delay in producing seized samples and absence of a forwarding note.
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 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1941
CRL.A.No.700 of 2008
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 1252/2002 of SPECIAL COURT FOR ABKARI ACT CASES, KOTTARAKKARA DATED 04-04-2008
APPELLANT/S:
SUNIL, S/O SURENDRAN, POIKAYIL VEEDU, KARINGANNOR MURI,, VELINALLUR VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR SMT.LEKSHMY.N.KAIMAL,AMICUS CURIAE
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOYAPPALLY POLICE, STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.E.C.BINEESH,PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Case No. Crl.A.700/08
-2-
JUDGMENT
The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the
court below under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act.
about 3 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of
thirty litres of wash for the purpose of manufacturing
arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.
Public Prosecutor.
Case No. Crl.A.700/08
though the incident in this case was on 27.2.2001, the
samples were produced before the court only on 9.3.2001 and in the said circumstances, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.
Case No. Crl.A.700/08
-4-
from 27.2.2001 to 9.3.2001 in producing the samples before the court. Since there was long and unexplained delay from 27.2.2001 to 9.3.2001 in producing the samples before the court, 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 and consequently, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.
note was produced and marked before the court in this
case. Since the forwarding note was not produced and marked before the court, there is no link evidence connecting the appellant with the samples analysed in the laboratory. For the said reason also, the
Case No. Crl.A.700/08
-5-
appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.
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.
sd
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE .
dl/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt due to long delay in producing seized samples before the court and absence of forwarding note.
Whether the unexplained delay in producing samples destroys the chain of custody and guarantee that samples were from the contraband seized.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SUNIL
STATE OF KERALA
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
