Allowed

Bhargavan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Jul 2019CRL.A/770/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal, acquitting the appellant who was convicted and sentenced for possessing arrack. The Court held the conviction unsustainable because the prosecution failed to produce a forwarding note, preventing proof of tamper-proof despatch of the analysed sample.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted. Bail bond discharged.

Bhargavan 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

CRL.A.No.770 of 2006

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 446/2000 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), KOLLAM DATED 29-03-2006

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 106/2000 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, KOLLAM

¶8

APPELLANT/S/ACCUSED:

¶9

BHARGAVAN S/O KRISHNAN, CHIRAYIL VEEDU, KARUMBELIL TEMPLE, KUZHIYAM CHERRY, PRINADU VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/S/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA POLICE, STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK,PP

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CRL.A.No.770 of 2006

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the

¶19

court below under Section 55(a) and (i) of the Abkari Act.

¶20

The prosecution allegation is that on 14.07.1999

¶21

at about 4.00 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of

¶22

1 litre of arrack in contravention of the provisions of the

¶23

Abkari Act.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued

¶26

that since no forwarding note was produced and marked before the court, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶27

It appears that no forwarding note was produced

¶28

and marked before the court. Therefore, it has to be held that

¶29

the prosecution could not establish the tamper-proof despatch of the sample to the laboratory. Consequently, there

¶30

¶31

CRL.A.No.770 of 2006

¶32

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. Since no forwarding note was produced and marked before the court, there is no link evidence connecting the appellant with the sample analysed in the laboratory. In the said circumstances, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below, relying on Ext.P5 certificate of chemical analysis, cannot be sustained.

¶33

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.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

RK/25.07.2019

Bhargavan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhargavan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Edward @ Raju Vs State of Kerala

Vijayakumary,D/O. Thamarakshi, Vs State of Kerala

T.O.Varghese Vs Geetha Babu

Suma Vs State of Kerala

Rajappan Vs State of Kerala

Pradeep Vs State of Kerala