Allowed

Sivankutty v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Jun 2019CRL.A/795/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant appealed against conviction for possession of arrack. The Court held that absence of a forwarding note prevented establishing tamper-proof despatch of the sample to the Laboratory, creating reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed; conviction set aside; acquittal and discharge of bail ordered.

What did the court decide?

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

Sivankutty Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶3

MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1941

¶4

CRL.A.No.795 of 2005

¶5

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 233/2003 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT -1, ALAPPUZHA DATED 28-04-2005

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 85/2002 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, CHENGANNUR

¶7

APPELLANT/S:

¶8

SIVANKUTTY, S/O GOVINDAN, DIVYA BHAVANAM (ON RECORD ),, ANGADIKKAL THEKKU MURI, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE,, CHENGANNUR TALUK.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶12

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

¶13

2 THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, CHENGANNUR.

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.E.C.BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

CRL.A.No.795 of 2005

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the court below under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act.

¶20

2 The prosecution allegation is that on 21-42000 at about 8 a.m., the appellant was found in possession of 750 ml. of arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

¶21

Heard.

¶22

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since no forwarding note was produced and marked before the court, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶23

It appears that no forwarding note was produced and marked in this case. Since the forwarding note was

¶24

CRL.A.No.795 of 2005

¶25

not produced and marked, it has to be held that the prosecution could not establish the tamper-proof despatch of the sample to the Laboratory. Since the tamper-proof despatch of the sample to the Laboratory could not be established, 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. The above view gains support from the decision of this Court in Prakasan and Another v. State of Kerala [2016 (1) KLD 311]. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶26

In the result, this Appeal stands allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by court below and the appellant stands acquitted, The bail bond of the appellant stands discharged.

¶27

Sd/-B.Sudheendra Kumar, Judge.

¶28

ani/

¶29

/true copy/

Sivankutty v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivankutty 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karthi Vs State of Kerala

Sugunan Vs State of Kerala

Ravi Vs Excise Range Officer and Another

Subran Vs State of Kerala

Komalan Vs State of Kerala

Sivanandan Vs the State of Kerala