Allowed

Bhaskaran Pillai, S/O. Krishna Kurup, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Mar 2021CRL.A/1190/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant. The court held that the conviction was unsustainable because the requisition note substituting the forwarding note failed to bear the impression of the specimen seal, contrary to established law.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set aside, accused acquitted, bail bonds cancelled, and fine deposit refunded.

Bhaskaran Pillai, S/O. Krishna Kurup, Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

CRL.A.No.1190 OF 2006

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC.NO.NO.90/2004 DATED 11-05-200 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC) FAST TRACK COURT – II, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

IN CP.NO.87/2003 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, ADOOR

¶8

APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

BHASKARAN PILLAI, S/O. KRISHNA KURUP, PUTHVILAYIL VEEDU, KAITHAKKATHIL KARA, PALLICKAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶13

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

¶14

2 THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, ADOOR.

¶15

SMT. SYLAJA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

CRL.A.No.1190 OF 2006

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Dated this the 5^th day of March 2021

¶21

The accused in SC.No.90/2004 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court - II, Pathanamthitta has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.05.2006, whereby, he has been found guilty of offence under Section 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 Lakh and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one more year.

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that on 16.04.2000 at 12.30 p.m, the accused was seen carrying a sack containing 100 polythene covers each containing 150 ml of arrack and walking through the ridge situated on the western side of Panattu pond situated in Cherukulam ela at the place called Kythakkal in Pallikkal village. CW1 Preventive Officer and team detected the crime and seized the articles. It is stated that two covers were opened and its contents were stored as a sample in a bottle of the size 180ml and that the sample was sealed and affixed with label. It is further stated that the label contained the signatures of the witnesses and the accused. The accused was arrested and CW1 himself registered the crime and produced the accused and contraband articles before the Court along with the

¶23

¶24

CRL.A.No.1190 OF 2006

¶25

requisition for chemical examination of the sample. Exts.P1 to P10, P11 and P12 series were marked on the side of the prosecution. PW1 to PW5 were examined. MO1 series, MO2 and MO3 were identified. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Court below found the accused guilty and imposed the sentence aforesaid.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Shylaja, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

¶27

Even though several grounds have been raised by the appellant, I find that the appellant is entitled to succeed for the sole reason that what is marked in evidence in the place of a forwarding

¶28

note, is a requisition for forwarding the sample for chemical examination, which does not contain the impression of the specimen seal used for sealing the sample. It is also noticed that the requisition does not even contain the name of the officer to whom the sample is to be entrusted for the purpose of forwarding to the Examiner. Even though the document is counter signed by the Magistrate at the bottom, no date is written below the initial which again leaves things to doubt regarding the date on which the sample was actually sent for chemical examination. This Court has held in several decisions that failure to affix the seal in the forwarding note is fatal for the prosecution and the accused will be entitled to be acquitted for that sole reason. [see Ravi V. State of Kerala [2018 (5) KHC 352] ;

¶29

CRL.A.No.1190 OF 2006

¶30

¶31

Balachandran V. State of Kerala [2020 (3) KHC 697]; Smithesh

¶32

v. State of Kerala [2019 (2) KLT 974] and Prekasan and another v. State of Kerala [2016 KHC 96].

¶33

On the basis of the facts of the case and in the light of the above decisions, the judgment dated 11.05.2006 in SC.No.90/2004 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court -II, Patthanamthitta is set aside. The accused is acquitted and set at liberty. Bail bonds if any executed are cancelled. It is seen that at the time of admission of the case, there was a direction to the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards fine before the trial court. The appellant is entitled to refund of the said amount on filing an appropriate application for the purpose. The appeal stands allowed.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

T.R.RAVI, JUDGE

¶36

Bhaskaran Pillai, S/O. Krishna Kurup, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaskaran Pillai, S/O. Krishna Kurup, 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

Kunhan Vs State of Kerala

Ramar Vs State of Kerala

Annamma Vs State of Kerala

Podiyan Vs State of Kerala

V.v.Monichan Vs State -S.H.O.

Suresh Vs State of Kerala