Allowed

Rajamma, D/O. Ummani, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Mar 2021CRL.A/256/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an appeal against conviction under the Abkari Act, holding that the prosecution's failure to produce and prove the forwarding note, which links seized arrack to the chemical analysis, is a serious flaw sufficient to acquit the accused.

What did the court decide?

The accused is acquitted and set at liberty. The judgment of the Sessions Court is set aside. Bail bond is cancelled.

Rajamma, D/O. Ummani, Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

CRL.APPEAL No.256 of 2006

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶7

CRL.A.No.256 OF 2006

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 1054/2000 DATED 12-01-2006 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

CP 97/2000 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,NEDUMANGAD

¶10

APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶11

RAJAMMA, D/O. UMMANI, CHENCHERI THOTTARIKATHU VEEDU, HOUSING BOARD, KOTTACKAKAM MURI, ARYANAD VILLAGE.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY

¶13

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶14

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

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SYLAJA

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

CRL.APPEAL No.256 of 2006

¶18

¶19

T.R. RAVI, J.

¶20

CRL.APPEAL No.256 of 2006

¶21

--------------------------------------------------

¶22

Dated this the 2^nd day of March 2021

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The accused in S.C.No.1054 of 2000 has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc-II), Thiruvananthapuram, dated 12.01.2016 finding the appellant guilty of offences under Section 58, 8 and 55(1) of the Abkari Act and imposing a sentence on him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

¶25

The case of the prosecution is that the Police party led by PW4 found the appellant in possession of arrack. The arrack was seized, the appellant was arrested and a crime was registered as per Ext.P2 FIR. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Nedumangad after receiving the final report and completion of the investigation, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Thiruvananthapuram, from where it was made over to the Assistant Sessions Court, Nedumangad. The case was

¶26

CRL.APPEAL No.256 of 2006

¶27

¶28

later withdrawn from that court and made over to the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track (Adhoc-II), Thiruvananthapuram and was numbered as S.C.No.1054 of 2000. The prosecution led evidence by producing and marking Exts.P1 to P4 documents and examining PW's 1 to 5. The trial court after consideration of the evidence on record found the appellant guilty of the offence charged and imposed the sentence referred above. The accused being aggrieved has approached this Court in appeal.

¶29

The main contention raised in the appeal is that the forwarding note has not been produced and marked in evidence by the prosecution and that alone is sufficient to acquit the appellant. I have gone through the records of the case and find that the prosecution has committed a serious flaw by not producing and marking the forwarding note which is the primary document which links the contraband articles and the sample t hat has been analyzed by the chemical analyst. 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

¶30

CRL.APPEAL No.256 of 2006

¶31

¶32

Kerala reported in ( 2020 (3) KHC 455) and Sebastian @ Para v. State of Kerala reported in ( 2020 KHC 478)] .

¶33

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

¶34

that on the facts of this case, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the offence. The judgment dated 12.01.2006 of the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track (Adhoc-II), Thiruvananthapuram in S.C.No.1054 of 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.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

T.R.RAVI, JUDGE

¶37

dsn

Rajamma, D/O. Ummani, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajamma, D/O. Ummani, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Vasantha Vs State of Kerala

M.K.Gopinatha Pillai Vs P.O.Jose,Partner

Sharafudheen, S/O. Alavi, Vs Nabeesa K.K., W/O. Rahim

Suresh Kumar @ Babu Vs State of Kerala

Shaiju K.Mathew Vs Sobhana Rajappan