The criminal appeal against conviction under the Abkari Act was allowed. The court held that the absence of a specimen seal in the forwarding note broke the chain of evidence, requiring the prosecution's case to be rejected and the accused acquitted.
Conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted; bail bonds cancelled; fine refunded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 12TH MAGHA,1942
CRL.A.No.1024 OF 2007
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 122/2004 DATED 06-06-2007 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK (ADHOC)-IV, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SHYAMALA, D/O. SAROJINI, VALIYAPARAMBU, KIZHANGUVILA MELE PUTHEN VEEDU, MARAYAMUTTOM DESOM, PERUMKADAVILA VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA.
BY ADVS. SRI. R. T. PRADEEP SRI. V. VIJULAL
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
ADV. SYLAJA S.L., PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.No.1024 OF 2007
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 1st day of February 2021
The appellant challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by judgment dated 06.06.2007 in S.C No.122 of 2004 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track Court (Adhoc) No.IV, Thiruvananthapuram for the offences under Sections 8 (1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the said offences.
CRL.A.No.1024 OF 2007
3
learned Magistrate found the accused guilty and imposed sentence of imprisonment as mentioned earlier.
CRL.A.No.1024 OF 2007
4
and again held that the prosecution case cannot inspire confidence. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to the decisions reported in Smithesh V. State of Kerala [2019 (2) KLT 974] as well as recent decisions of this Court in Balachandran V. State of Kerala [2020 (4) KLT 137] and Sajeevan V. State of Kerala [2020 (6) KLT 53].
CRL.A.No.1024 OF 2007
5
laboratories. In the absence of such seal this Court has repeatedly held the decisions in Smithesh's case (supra) , Balachandran's case (supra) and Sajeevan's case (supra) , that the prosecution case cannot be believed in toto and the accused must be given the benefit of doubt. I respectfully follow the aforesaid decisions.
In the above circumstances, the conviction and sentence imposed by judgment dated 06.06.2007 in S.C No.122 of 2004 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track Court (Adhoc) No.IV, Thiruvananthapuram is set aside and the accused shall stand acquitted and this appeal is allowed. The bail bonds, if any, executed by the accused shall stand cancelled. If any fine amount if any deposited shall be refunded forthwith.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE
SPR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether absence of specimen seal in forwarding note vitiates the chain of evidence in prosecutorial seizure cases.
Whether the prosecution failure to prove the chain of evidence warrants acquittal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smithesh V. State of KeralaFollowed¶35
Smithesh V. State of Kerala [2019 (2) KLT 974]
Balachandran V. State of KeralaFollowed¶35
Balachandran V. State of Kerala [2020 (4) KLT 137]
Sajeevan V. State of KeralaFollowed¶35
Sajeevan V. State of Kerala [2020 (6) KLT 53]
Shyamala, D/o. Sarojini
State of Kerala
Bechu Kurian Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
