Allowed

Chami v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Mar 2021CRL.A/1184/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal where the appellant was convicted under the Abkari Act. The Court held that the conviction was illegal as the investigating officer lacked territorial jurisdiction over the offense location. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted; bail bonds cancelled; fine refunded.

Chami 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 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

CRL.A.No.1184 OF 2006

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 260/2002 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KALPETTA

¶7

APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

CHAMI S/O. NARAYANAN, NENMERI, VENDOLE HOUSE, CHEERAL POST, SULTHAN BATHERY. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ANOOP

¶9

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

R1 BY SMT.MAYA M.N., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-02-2021, THE COURT ON 09-03-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Crl.Appeal No.1184/06

¶14

-:2:-

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Dated this the 9^th day of March, 2021

¶17

Appellant challenges the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by judgment dated 5.5.2006 in S.C. No.260 of 2002 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-II, Kalpetta. By the impugned judgment, the accused was found guilty for the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

¶18

The prosecution case was that on 26.10.2000, the Sub Inspector of Police, Sulthan Bathery found the accused in possession of 1 litre of illicit arrack on a pathway at Vendola in Cheeral Amsom.

¶19

After investigation, since the final report revealed a case triable exclusively by a Court of Session, the case was committed for trial to the Sessions Court.

¶20

The prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and marked Ext.P1 to Ext.P7, apart from the material object MO1.

¶21

After analysing the evidence adduced in the case, learned

¶22

Crl.Appeal No.1184/06

¶23

-:3:-

¶24

Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence alleged and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment and imposed fine, as mentioned above.

¶25

I have heard Sri.Anoop P.V., learned counsel for the appellant as well as Smt.Maya M.N., learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶26

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire prosecution case has to fail on account of a fundamental defect in the prosecution case. It is pointed out that the crime was detected by PW1, who had no territorial jurisdiction to investigate into the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused.

¶27

A perusal of the evidence adduced shows that PW1 was the Sub Inspector of Police, Sulthan Bathery, at the relevant time. The offence was committed at a place beyond the jurisdiction of the Sub Inspector of Police, Sulthan Bathery. The place where the offence was detected and committed comes within the territorial limits of Ambalavayal police station, as spoken to by PW7. Registration of Ext.P1 crime was carried out by PW1. However the further investigation was conducted by PW7. It is therefore clear that PW1, who had no authority to detect or register a crime within the territorial

¶28

Crl.Appeal No.1184/06

¶29

-:4:-

¶30

limits of Ambalavayal police station carried out the arrest, seizure and registration of the crime.

¶31

As held in several decisions including Rajappan v. State of Kerala (2016 (3) KHC 356) that the registration of a crime or conducting of investigation by an officer beyond his territorial limits is non-est in the eye of law and the authorisation given to a Sub Inspector being solely confined to his territorial jurisdiction, such registration of a crime without authority and authorisation makes the entire prosecution case non-est in law. In the said circumstances, the accused is entitled to be acquitted.

¶32

Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused in S.C. No.260 of 2002 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-II, Kalpetta, is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted. The bail bonds, if any, executed shall stand cancelled and the fine amount, if remitted, shall be refunded forthwith.

¶33

The appeal is allowed as above.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶36

vps

¶37

/True Copy/ PS to Judge

Chami v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chami 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.K. Gangan Menon Vs Authorised Officer

Balakrishnan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Bhuvanendran Vs State of Kerala

Asokan Vs State of Kerala

Ramankutty @ Raveendran Vs Excise Inspector

Jency T George, Vs the Branch Manager