Allowed

Rajan, S/O. Thankaraj, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Mar 2021CRL.A/1727/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction under the Abkari Act for possession of contraband arrack. The High Court acquitted the appellant due to the prosecution's failure to produce and prove the forwarding note linking the seized sample to the chemical analysis, following established precedents.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of conviction is set aside. The appellant is acquitted and set at liberty. Bail bond is cancelled.

Rajan, S/O. Thankaraj, Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | 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 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

CRL.A.No.1727 OF 2006

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 646/2004 DATED 18-07-2006 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-I, THODUPUZHA

¶7

CP 98/2002 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KATTAPPANA

¶8

APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

RAJAN, S/O. THANKARAJ, AYYAPPANCOIL VILLAGE, CHAPPATHUKARA,, POOKULAM PUTHUVAL.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SYLAJA PP

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-02-2021, THE COURT ON 10-03-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CRL.A.No.1727 OF 2006

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 10^th day of March, 2021

¶19

The accused in SC.No.646/2004 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-I, Thodupuzha has filed this appeal, aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.7.2006, whereby he has been found guilty of offence punishable under Sections 55 and 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1 Lakh and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that on 12.1.2002 at about 7.15 PM, the appellant was found to be in possession of 2½ litres of contraband arrack in a black can of 5 litre capacity, beneath a cot in the bedroom of his house. Before the trial court, the prosecution examined PW's 1 to 7 and marked Exts.P1 to P8 and identified MO1. On the side of the defense Exts.D1 to D7 were marked. On the basis of the evidence on record the trial court found the appellant guilty of the offence charged against him and imposed on him the sentence referred above.

¶21

Heard Sri Joice George, learned ounsel for the appellant and Smt.Sylaja, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

¶22

¶23

CRL.A.No.1727 OF 2006

¶24

The counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution has failed to produce and prove the forwarding note whereby the sample said to have been taken at the time of detection of the offence was forwarded to the Chemical examiner. It is also contended that there is delay in forwarding the sample and producing the property list in the court. I find considerable force in the contention put forward by the counsel for the appellant. On going through the records of the case and the impugned judgment, I find that there is a serious flaw in the prosecution case. The primary document which links the contraband articles and the sample t hat has been analyzed by the chemical analyst, which is the forwarding note, has not been marked in evidence on the side of the prosecution. The necessity of marking and proving the forwarding note containing the specimen seal on the sample affixed to it has been emphasized in several judgments of this Court and it has been held that the failure to prove the forwarding note is sufficient to acquit the accused. [See the decisions in Unnikrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala reported in ( 2020 (3) KHC 455) and Sebastian @ Para v. State of Kerala reported in ( 2020 KHC 478)] .

¶25

In the light of the law laid down by this Court, I find that

¶26

CRL.A.No.1727 OF 2006

¶27

¶28

on the facts of this case, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the offence. The judgment dated 18.07.2006 in SC.No.646/2004 of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) I, Thodupuzha is set aside. The appellant is acquitted and set at liberty. Bail bond if any executed by the appellant or on his behalf is cancelled. The appeal stands allowed.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

T.R.RAVI, JUDGE

¶31

dsn

Rajan, S/O. Thankaraj, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan, S/O. Thankaraj, 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

Raju Vs State of Kerala

Augustine Vs State of Kerala

C.Raghvan Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Rajendran Pillai Vs Sreekumar

Sahadevan Vs State of Kerala