Allowed

Jackey @ Lakshmanan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Jul 2019CRL.A/849/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed this criminal appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove tamper-proof despatch of seized arrack samples due to the absence of a forwarding note. Consequently, the conviction and sentence under Section 58 of the Abkari Act were set aside with the appellants acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence under Section 58 of the Abkari Act set aside; appellants acquitted; bail bonds discharged.

Jackey @ Lakshmanan 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

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

CRL.A.No.849 of 2008

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 643/2007 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR DATED 15-04-2008

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 42/2006 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,VADAKKANCHERRY

¶8

APPELLANT/S/ACCUSED:

¶9

1 JACKEY @ LAKSHMANAN S/O. AVINASI, ERAVATHODI DESOM,, KANIYARKODE VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶10

2 MURUKARAJAN S/O. ARUNACHALAM, ERAVATHODI DESOM, KANIYARKODE VILLAGE,, THALAPPILLY TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶11

3 MANIKANDAN, S/O. KRISHNANMUTHALI, RAVATHODI DESOM,KANIYARKODE VILLAGE,, THALAPPILLY TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT

¶13

RESPONDENT/S/STATE & COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PP SRI BINEESH

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

CRL.A.No.849 of 2008

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The appellants were convicted and sentenced by the

¶20

court below under Section 58 of the Abkari Act.

¶21

The prosecution allegation is that on 26.09.2004

¶22

at about 10.00 a.m., the appellants were found in possession

¶23

of 6 litres each of arrack in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

The learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that since no forwarding note was produced and marked

¶26

before the court, the appellants are 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 samples to the laboratory. Consequently, there

¶30

¶31

CRL.A.No.849 of 2008

¶32

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 appellants. Since no forwarding note was produced and marked before the court, there is no link evidence connecting the appellants with the samples analysed in the laboratory. In the said circumstances, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below relying on Ext.P8 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 appellants stand acquitted. The bail bonds of the appellants stand discharged.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

RK/16.07.2019

Jackey @ Lakshmanan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jackey @ Lakshmanan 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

Sreenivasan @ Subramanian Vs State of Kerala

Raji R. Nair Vs State of Kerala

C.K.Alikoya Vs State of Kerala

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala

Sasi Vs State of Kerala

Omanakuttan Vs State of Kerala