GOPALAKRISHNAN UNNITHAN, S/O.LATE GOVINDAN UNNITHAN, AGED 67 YEARS, G.K.SADANAM VEEDU, ELAMANNOOR KARA, ENALIMANGALAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SAJEEV

¶10

RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT :

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.MAYA M.N.

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING :

¶14

CRL.A.No.2352 OF 2006(F)

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated this the 7^th day of January 2021

¶18

The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1077. 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.

¶19

The prosecution case was that the accused was found in possession of 35 litres of wash in a black can along with rubber tube at his residential house on 06.01.2000 at 6.00 p.m. by the Excise Inspector. Pursuant to completion of investigation and final report being filed, the case was committed to the Sessions Court.

¶20

In order to prove the prosecution case, PWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exts.P1 to P3 were marked. MOs 1 and 2 were also marked. After analysing the prosecution case and the evidence adduced, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty and sentenced him as stated earlier. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, this appeal is preferred.

¶21

CRL.A.No.2352 OF 2006(F)

¶22

¶23

Assailing the conviction, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution case, even if admitted in its entirety, would still not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In support of his contention, attention of this Court was invited to the absence of specimen seal on the forwarding note, which is produced as Ext.P9 in evidence. Perusal of Ext.P9, which is marked as 'copy of requisition' shows that it is the forwarding note that was marked and termed as requisition, which unfortunately does not bear the sample seal.

¶24

The absence of seal in a forwarding note sending the sample for analysis to the chemical analysis laboratory breaks the link that connect the contraband seized with the sample taken and send for analysis to the chemical analysis laboratory. In the absence of a seal on the forwarding note the link breaks and the sanctity of sample that was sent for analysis becomes doubtful. It has been held in Balachandran v. State of Kerala [2020 (4) KLT 137] and in Sajeevan v. State of Kerala [2020 (6) KLT 53] apart from several other decisions that absence of seal on the forwarding note is fatal to the prosecution. In the aforesaid circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

¶25

Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the

¶26

CRL.A.No.2352 OF 2006(F)

¶27

¶28

accused in SC.No.157/2004 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court-III, Pathanamthitta shall stand set aside and the accused is acquitted. The bail bond furnished, if any, by the accused shall stand cancelled and he shall be set at liberty forthwith.

¶29

The Criminal appeal is allowed as above.

¶30

Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE

¶31

RKM

Gopalakrishnan Unnithan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Gopalakrishnan Unnithan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meppalli Rajan, Vs Ayyanari Appu Nair

Udayakumar @ Udayan, Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Salim Rawther, S/O. Kunjumeeran Rawther, Vs State of Kerala

K.S Mohanan Nair Vs Kerala State Handloom Weavers Co-Operative Society Limited

Abdul Kader C.H, Vs Union of India