The High Court allowed an appeal against conviction for alcohol smuggling. The court held that the absence of a specimen seal impression on the forwarding note broke the chain of custody, creating a reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the analyzed sample.
The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. Appellant is acquitted and set at liberty.
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 T.R.RAVI
MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1942
CRL.A.No.1053 OF 2006
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 508/2000 DATED 05-04-2006 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT(ADHOC)NO.IV,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 26/2000 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -I, ATTINGAL
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
VASANTHA D/O.AMMU, THODIYAVILA VEEDU, CHIRAYINKEEZH.
BY ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY SMT.SYLAJA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.No.1053 OF 2006
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 1st day of March 2021
The accused in S.C.No.508/2000 on the file of the
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (Adhoc) IV, Thiruvananthapuram is the appellant. The Court below by judgment dated 05.04.2006 found the appellant guilty of offence under Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Abkari Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1 Lakh and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months.
is said to have happened at about 3 p.m on 21.11.1998. The accused was arrested, the seizure mahazar was prepared in the presence of independent witnesses; the accused along with
3
CRL.A.No.1053 OF 2006
the 'thondi' articles and records were produced at the Excise Range Office, Chirayinkeezh and the crime was registered. Thereafter, the appellant was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court – I, Attingal, was remanded to Judicial custody and thereafter released on bail.
4
CRL.A.No.1053 OF 2006
to the judgment that MO-1 is a 5 litre damaged white plastic jar. The trial court on the basis of the evidence on record found the accused guilty and imposed the sentence aforesaid.
Ravi v. State of Kerala [2018 (5) KHC 352], Balachandran v. State of Kerala [2020 (3) KHC 697],
CRL.A.No.1053 OF 2006
5
Smithesh v. State of Kerala [2019 (2) KLT 974], Prakasan & another v. State 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.
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 05.04.2006 of the Court below in SC.No.508/2000 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
Sn
2 issues framed by the court
Whether failure to affix specimen seal impression on forwarding note vitiates the chain of evidence regarding seized contraband?
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the sample reached the chemical examiner in tamper-proof condition?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ravi v. State of KeralaDistinguished¶34
Ravi v. State of Kerala [2018 (5) KHC 352]
Balachandran v. State of KeralaDistinguished¶34
Balachandran v. State of Kerala [2020 (3) KHC 697]
Smithesh v. State of KeralaDistinguished¶34
Smithesh v. State of Kerala [2019 (2) KLT 974]
Prakasan & another v. State of KeralaDistinguished¶34
Prakasan & another v. State of Kerala [2016 KHC 96]
VANATHA D.O.AMMU
STATE OF KERALA
T.RAVI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
