Allowed

Rajankunju, S/O.Anthony Nadar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Jan 2021CRL.A/711/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The High Court allowed the appeal, acquitting the appellant due to fatal infirmities including unauthorized crime registration by an Assistant Sub Inspector and unexplained delays in producing seized contraband.

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence are set aside, the accused is acquitted, bail bond cancelled, and fine refunded.

Rajankunju, S/O.Anthony Nadar Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 18TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

CRL.A.No.711 OF 2006

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT, CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 01.02.2006 IN S.C.NO.88/2004 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, THODUPUZHA

¶7

APPELLANT/ ACCUSED :

¶8

RAJANKUNJU, S/O.ANTHONY NADAR PANACKAL PUTHENVEEDU, CHOOLAPARA BHAGAM, PARAKUNNU KARA, KALIYICKAVILLA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT 5TH MURILAYAM, IST ROOM, VELLANI DIVISION, TR AND T ESTATE, MATHAMBA KARA, PERUVANTHANAM VILLAGE

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.C.M.TOMY SRI.MATHEW SKARIA SRI.BALU TOM

¶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 08.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

CRL.A.No.711 OF 2006

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated this the 8th day of January 2021

¶18

The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months by judgment dated 01.02.2006 in SC.No.88/2004 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court (Ad hoc-II), Thodupuzha.

¶19

The prosecution case was that on 23.05.2002, the accused was found possessing 200 litres of arrack kept for sale and PW1, who was the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police detected the offence, arrested the accused, seized the material objects and registered the crime. Subsequently, after the completion of investigation, the final report was filed and the learned Magistrate committed the case for trial to the Sessions Court.

¶20

In order to prove the prosecution case, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked apart from MOs 1 and 2. The defence marked Ext.D1. After analysing the evidence adduced, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the accused had committed the offence and thus found him guilty and imposed the

¶21

CRL.A.No.711 OF 2006

¶22

¶23

sentence as stated above.

¶24

Assailing the impugned judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal stating that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that the appreciation by the learned Sessions Judge was completely erroneous.

¶25

I have heard the leaned counsel for the appellant Adv.Balu Tom as well as Adv.Smt.Maya M.N., the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

The learned counsel for the appellant points out that two crucial infirmities are there in the prosecution case and evidence due to which the benefit of doubt ought to be given to the appellant. He further submits that one of the infirmities actually strike at the very root of the prosecution case itself thereby rendering the case built up by the prosecution to be without any legs to stand.

¶27

Adv.Balu Tom submitted that the detection of crime and the registration was by the Assistant Sub Inspector, who was examined as PW1. He was not an authorised officer under the Abkari Act to register a crime. Perusal of evidence of PW1 shows that it was he, who registered Crime No.72/2002 since the Sub Inspector of Police was not in station. Even though a veiled attempt was made by PW1 to state that at the time he was in charge as the Station House Officer, no records are seen produced to prove that PW1 was in charge as the Station House

¶28

CRL.A.No.711 OF 2006

¶29

¶30

Officer. In the absence of any reliable documentary evidence to prove that PW1 was acting as the Sub Inspector of Police, I find that the registration of the crime by the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police was not permissible under the eye of law.

¶31

The learned counsel for the appellant also points out that even though the accused was arrested and the alleged contraband seized on 23.05.2002, the same was produced before the court only on 18.06.2002, causing a delay of more than 26 days. This long delay of 26 days is not at all explained by the prosecution and the same renders the prosecution case under doubt. The contraband was also retained by PW1 without any reason and no explanation is forthcoming, which also creates doubt on the prosecution story.

¶32

In view of the aforesaid infirmities pointed by the learned counsel, to which this Court record its approval as infirmities striking at the very root of the prosecution case, it cannot be said to have proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

¶33

In the aforesaid circumstances, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused in S.C.No.88/2004 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc-II), Thodupuzha by judgment dated 02.02.2006 is set aside and the accused is acquitted. The bail bond, if any, furnished shall stand cancelled and the fine amount, if remitted,

¶34

CRL.A.No.711 OF 2006

¶35

¶36

shall be refunded to the appellant.

¶37

The appeal is therefore allowed as above.

¶38

Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE

¶39

RKM

Rajankunju, S/O.Anthony Nadar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajankunju, S/O.Anthony Nadar 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

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

Gopalakrishnan Unnithan Vs State of Kerala

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

Manikantan @ Krishnakumaran, Vs State of Kerala

Thalal Gold Palace Vs the State Tax Officer

Nirmal Associates Vs Union of India