The High Court of Kerala allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside the guilty verdict due to the non-production of seized illegal arrack before the court, relying on the principle that failure to produce primary evidence is fatal for the prosecution.
The judgment dated 18.12.2007 is set aside; the appellant is acquitted and set at liberty; bail bond cancelled.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1942
CRL.A.No.268 OF 2008
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 429/2006 DATED 18-122007 OF ADDITIONAL SESSN.COURT (ADHOC-II)KASARAGODE
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 263/2005 DATED 19-072006 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KASARAGOD
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
C.RAGHVAN S/O.CHENIYA, THANKAYATHADUKKAM, KARIVETAKAM VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.
R1 SMT. SYLAJA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.No.268 OF 2008 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 9th day of March 2021
The accused in S.C.No.429/2006 on the file of Additional
Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Kasaragod has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.12.2007, whereby he has been found guilty of offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.
and Smt.Sylaja, Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.
CRL.A.No.268 OF 2008 3
CRL.A.No.268 OF 2008 4
paragraph 11 of the judgment the court below has held that the said failure is not of much consequence. In my opinion, the above finding rendered by the court below is not in accordance with the law laid down by this Court as well as the statutory provisions.
This appeal stands allowed.
Sd/-
T.R.RAVI
JUDGE
LEK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether non-production of seized contraband renders the evidence insufficient for conviction?
Whether the finding, that the failure to produce contraband was of little consequence, is correct in law?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narayana Velichappada vs. Sub Inspector of Police and anotherRelied on¶24
[2007 (4) KHC 748]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
C.RAGHVAN S/O.CHENIYA
STATE OF KERALA
T.R.RAVI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
