The single-judge High Court allowed the criminal appeal against conviction under the Abkari Act. The court acquitted the appellant, setting aside the conviction due to defective evidence regarding missing forwarding note and seal details.
Conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted; 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 DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944
CRL.A NO. 1475 OF 2006
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 254/2000 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,NEYYATTINKARA
SC 895/2001 OF ADDITIONAL S.C.-TRIAL OF ABKARI ACT
CASES,NEYYATTINKARA
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
MAHEEM
AGED 1 YEARS S/O.MASTHANKANNU,PLANKALA PUTHENVEEDU, AYIRA DESOM,, CHENKAVILA, KARODE VILLAGE. BY ADV SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, THIRUPURAM EXCISE RANGE,, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SMT T V NEEMA- SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL. A NO. 1475 of 2006
..2..
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Court, (for trial of Abkari Act Cases), Neyyattinkara (for short, “the Court below”) in S.C. No.895/2001 dated 20.06.2006.
punishable under Sections 55(a) of the Abkari Act.
Court below. After hearing both sides, the charge for the
..3..
CRL. A NO. 1475 of 2006
offence punishable under Sections 55(a) of the Abkari Act was framed against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty.
CRL. A NO. 1475 of 2006
..4..
forwarding note by which the contraband article was forwarded to the Chemical Analysis Laboratory has not been produced. A mere production of the laboratory report that the sample tested was contraband substance is not sufficient unless and until the forwarding note also is produced.
[2019 KHC 655] has held that in the absence of the forwarding note marked in evidence, it cannot be found that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the very same sample taken at the spot of occurrence had reached the chemical examiner for analysis in a tamper proof condition. The forwarding note is the link evidence to show that it was the same sample which was drawn from the contraband seized from the accused had eventually reached the Chemical Analysis Laboratory by change of hands in a tamper proof condition. Hence, I am of the view that non production of the forwarding
CRL. A NO. 1475 of 2006
..5..
note is fatal to the prosecution.
CRL. A NO. 1475 of 2006
..6..
the Court below vide the impugned judgment are set aside. The
appellant is found not guilty of the offences charged against him and accordingly he is acquitted. His bail bond is cancelled.
The appeal is allowed as above.
Sd/-
DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE
RMV/01/07/2022
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction can be sustained without the forwarding note and specimen seal.
Whether the absence of forwarding note creates reasonable doubt regarding tamper proof condition of sample.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gireesh @ Manoj v. State of KeralaRelied on¶37
Gireesh @ Manoj v. State of Kerala [2019 KHC 655]
K. Bhaskaran v. State of KeralaRelied on¶41
K. Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala (2020(5) KLT Online 1057)
MAHEEM
STATE OF KERALA
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
Parties & counsel
