Allowed

N.Krishnan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Mar 2021CRL.A/1045/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed an appeal against conviction under section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. The Court held that the absence of a specimen seal on the forwarding note for seized samples rendered the prosecution unable to prove that the samples reached the chemical examiner in a tamper-proof condition, leading to the appellant's acquittal.

What did the court decide?

The conviction was set aside, the appellant was acquitted and set at liberty, and bail bond was cancelled.

N.Krishnan Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

CRL.A.No.1045 OF 2006

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 25.02.2006 IN SC 253/2003 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC)- III) KASARAGODE

¶7

APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

N.KRISHNAN AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. K.NARAYANAN, PATHINETTAM MILE, KALLAR VILLAGE, HOSDURG.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER IBRAHIM

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY EXCISE INSPECTOR, HOSDURG EXCISE RANGE (O.R.20/99), HOSDURG, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY SMT. SYLAJA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

CRL.A.No.1045 OF 2006

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated this the 3^rd day of March 2021

¶18

The accused in S.C.No.253/2003 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) III, Kasargod has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.02.2006 whereby he has been found guilty of offence under section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.

¶19

The prosecution case is that on 25.07.1999 at about 7 p.m, the party headed by the Preventive Officer attached to the Excise Circle, Hosdurg, found the accused in front of the Bus waiting shed in the Kanhangad-Panathur road, near Panchayath Office, Panathady with a white polythene bag containing 35 packets of 100ml of Karnataka made arrack. The accused was arrested and produced before the Excise Range Officer, Hosdurg and crime was registered. After investigation of the case, the accused was charge sheeted and the case was taken on file as C.P.No.91/2002 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – I, Hosdurg. The case was committed to the Sessions Court and thereafter it was made over to the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) III, Kasargod for trial and disposal.

¶20

¶21

CRL.A.No.1045 OF 2006

¶22

On the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW6 were examined, documents Exts.P1 to P7 were marked and MO1 to MO3 were identified. After considering the evidence on record, the court below found the appellant guilty and sentenced him as aforesaid.

¶23

In this appeal, the appellant contends that there is no evidence to sustain the conviction of the appellant. According to the counsel for the appe llant, the court below has gone wrong in relying on the evidence of the official witnesses since even the evidence of PW1 who was the Investigating Officer suffers from several contradictions. It is further contended that there is no delay in producing the samples before the Court and forwarding the same for analysis to the chemical examiner. I have perused the records of the case and it is seen that even if the contentions put forward by the counsel for the appellant is not accepted, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted in this case for the sole ground that the forwarding note which is produced as Ext.P6 does not bear the specimen seal used for sealing the sample taken from the seized articles.

¶24

Failure to affix the seal on the forwarding note is fatal for the prosecution. The requirement of affixing of the specimen seal impression and the legal consequence of such failure has been considered by this Court in several judgments and is no longer res

¶25

CRL.A.No.1045 OF 2006

¶26

¶27

integra [ See Ravi v. State of Kerala 2018 (5) KHC 352, Balachandran v. State of Kerala 2020 (3) KHC 697, Smithesh v. State of Kerala 2019 (2) KLT 974, Prakasan & another v. State

¶28

of Kerala 2016 KHC 96] . This Court has held that the above said failure will lead to a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the very sample taken at the spot of occurrence had reached the chemical examiner for analysis, in a tamper proof condition.

¶29

In the light of the law declared by this Court, on the facts of this case, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and thus succeed in the appeal. The judgment dated 25.02.2006 of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) III, Kasargode in SC.No.253/2003 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted and set at liberty. Bail bond if any, executed by the appellant is cancelled. The appeal stands allowed.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI

JUDGE

N.Krishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Krishnan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharafudheen, S/O. Alavi, Vs Nabeesa K.K., W/O. Rahim

Rajamma, D/O. Ummani, Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Kumar @ Babu Vs State of Kerala

Shaiju K.Mathew Vs Sobhana Rajappan

Mathoor Pookoya Thangal Vs P.Muhammed Alavi

Chakrapani @ Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala