Allowed

Peyoos v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jul 2019CRL.A/956/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal. Due to the absence of a forwarding note, the prosecution failed to prove the tamper-proof despatch of seized samples. Consequently, the link between the appellant and the chemical analysis was broken, leading the court to acquit the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Acquittal of the appellant; setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the court below; discharge of the bail bond.

Peyoos 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 17TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

CRL.A.No.956 of 2006

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 75/2001 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), KOLLAM

¶7

APPELLANT/S:

¶8

PEYOOS

¶9

S/O PAULOUSE, THOTTUVILA VEEDU, KANNANALLOOR MURI, THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

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

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI.E.C.BINEESH,PP

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Case No. Crl.A 956/2006

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the

¶19

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

¶20

The prosecution allegation is that on 5.10.1999 at

¶21

about 1.30 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of

¶22

1.750 litres of Indian made foreign liquor for the purpose of sale, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

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

¶25

It appears that the forwarding note was not produced and marked before the court. Therefore, it

¶26

Case No. Crl.A 956/2006

¶27

-3-

¶28

has to be held that the prosecution could not establish the tamper-proof despatch of the samples to the laboratory. Consequently, 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. Since no forwarding note was produced and marked before the court, there is no link evidence to connect the appellant with the samples 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 and consequently, I set aside the same.

¶29

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.

¶30

¶31

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE .

¶32

dl/

Peyoos v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Peyoos 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

Thulasi Vs State of Kerala

Omanakuttan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Kannadasan @ Kandankutty Vs State of Kerala

Ravikumar Vs the State of Kerala

Yasodha Vs State of Kerala

V.K.Rajan Vs State of Kerala