Allowed

Sasi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Mar 2021CRL.A/745/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the criminal appeal. The court quashed the conviction and sentence imposed under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act because the prosecution failed to produce the forwarding note, which is fatal to the case as it breaks the chain of custody for the sample.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment dated 06.03.2008 is set aside; the appellant is acquitted and set at liberty; bail bonds are cancelled.

Sasi 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 T.R.RAVI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

CRL.A.No.745 OF 2008

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 1382/2005 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOLLAM DATED 6.3.2008

¶7

APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

SASI

¶9

S/O.MADHAVAN, SASI BHAVANAM, ADINADU THEKKUM MURI, ADINADU VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE RANGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, (CRIME NO.45/03 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY EXCISE RANGE)

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT SYLAJA

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CRL.A.No.745 OF 2008

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 15th day of March 2021

¶19

The accused in S.C.No.1382/2005 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court (Adhoc II), Kollam has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.03.2008, whereby he has been found guilty of offence under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of 3,00,000/- and₹ in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year.

¶20

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.04.2003 the Excise Inspector, who was on patrol duty, got information that spirit is stored in the house of the accused and during the search of the house

¶21

in the presence of the accused at about 4.30 p.m., it was found that a white can of 5 litre capacity which was filled with spirit was kept in the kitchen of the

¶22

house. The contraband article was seized and it is stated that 200 ml of the liquor was collected as

¶23

CRL.A.No.745 OF 2008

¶24

¶25

sample and the sample and the residue were sealed and labelled and duly attested by the witnesses. The accused was arrested. It is stated that the properties were produced before the court on the next day, i.e., 12.04.2003 as per the property list Ext.P7 with a request for chemical analysis. Before the trial court,

¶26

PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.P1 to P10 were marked. None of the independent witnesses were examined. It is seen from the records of the case and the judgment that the forwarding note has not been produced and marked. On the basis of the evidence on record, the court below found the appellant guilty of offence and imposed the sentence referred above.

¶27

3. Heard.

¶28

4. Even though several contentions have been

¶29

raised in the appeal memorandum, there is a serious

¶30

flaw in the prosecution case, since the forwarding note

¶31

has not been produced and marked as evidence in the case. This court has held in several decisions that

¶32

the absence to produce and mark the forwarding note is

¶33

CRL.A.No.745 OF 2008

¶34

¶35

fatal to the prosecution case and it will not be possible to hold that the prosecution has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the very same sample which was taken on the spot of occurrence had reached the chemical examiner for analysis in a tamper proof condition. [See Unnikrishnan Nair V. State of Kerala (2020 (3) KHC 455) & Sadasivan @ Para V. State of Kerala (2020 KHC 478) . It is seen from the report of the Chemical Examiner that the sample had reached the examiner only on 29.04.2003, which was 18 days after the seizure of the articles. The absence to produce and mark the forwarding note in such circumstances is crucial and the link between taking of the sample for production before the court and forwarding the same for chemical examination has not been satisfactorily proved.

¶36

In the above circumstances, the judgment dated 06.03.2008 in S.C.No.1382/2005 of the Additional District and Sessions Court (Adhoc II), Kollam is set aside. The appellant is acquitted and set at liberty.

¶37

CRL.A.No.745 OF 2008

¶38

¶39

The bail bonds, if any, executed by the appellant or on his behalf are cancelled. The appeal is allowed.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

T.R.RAVI, JUDGE

¶42

Sasi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasi 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

Sahadevan Vs State of Kerala

Vijaya Naik Vs State of Kerala

M.Kesavan Vs State of Kerala

Bennis, S/O.Kunjukunju, Vs State of Kerala

Thulasi Vs State of Kerala

Venugopalan Vs State of Kerala