Allowed

Mathew v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Jun 2019CRL.A/763/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court of Kerala examined the conviction of the appellant under the Abkari Act for possessing wash. The Court allowed the appeal setting aside the conviction due to unexplained delay in producing the sample and failure to prove its safe custody. The appellant was acquitted.

What did the court decide?

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

Mathew Vs 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

TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

CRL.A.No.763 of 2008

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 312/2007 of SPECIAL COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), THODUPUZHA DATED 25-03-2008

¶7

APPELLANT/S/ACCUSED:

¶8

MATHEW

¶9

S/O DEVASSIA, THATTAPILLY HOUSE, UPPUKUNNU KARA, UDUMBANNOOR VILLAGE,, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR

¶11

RESPONDENT/S/STATE:

¶12

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

¶13

SRI.E.C.BINEESH,PP

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CRL.A.No.763 of 2008

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the

¶19

court below under Section 55 (g) of the Abkari Act.

¶20

The prosecution allegation is that on 10.04.2004 at about 3.30 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of 130 litres of wash for the purpose of manufacturing arrack

¶21

in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

¶22

Heard.

¶23

The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued

¶24

that even though the incident in this case was on 10.04.2004, the sample was produced before the court only on 19.04.2004. In the said circumstances, the appellant is

¶25

entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶26

Ext.P7 is the property list, whereby the sample

¶27

was produced before the court. Ext.P7 would show that the

¶28

CRL.A.No.763 of 2008

¶29

¶30

sample was produced before the court only on 19.04.2004. PW3 produced the sample before the court. PW3 stated that the sample was sent to the court through Excise Guards, namely, Nizar and Devadas. However, PW3 did not state as to when the sample was handed over to the above said Excise Guards. The reason for the delayed production of the sample before the court was also not explained by PW3. The evidence of PW3 does not prove the safe custody of the sample till its production before the court. Since there was unexplained delay in producing the sample before the court, there cannot be any guarantee that the sample produced before the court and analysed 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 appellant is

¶31

CRL.A.No.763 of 2008

¶32

¶33

entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶34

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.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

RK/26.06.2019

Mathew v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathew v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subran Vs State of Kerala

Komalan Vs State of Kerala

Sivanandan Vs the State of Kerala

Pradeep Vs State of Kerala

Chithrakani Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Vs State of Kerala