High Court of Kerala set aside conviction in possession of illicit arrack case, acquitting accused due to fatal non-production of property list and arrest memo reinforcing Ramankutty precedent.
Conviction and sentence set aside; accused 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
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1944 CRL.REV.PET NO. 1022 OF 2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 595/2004 OF I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE
SC 448/2001 OF COURT OF SESSION, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SUNIL KUMAR S/O VELAYUDHAN KARUPPAL HOUSE, PERUVAYAL AMSOM,, POOVATTUPARAMBU DESOM, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV SRI.SANTHARAM.P
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT T V NEEMA -SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.1022/06
-:2:-
Dated this the 4th day of July, 2022
This criminal revision petition has been directed against the judgment dated 9/12/2005 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode (for short 'the appellate court') in Crl.A.No.595/2004 confirming the judgment dated 13/8/2004 passed by the Court of Sessions, Kozhikode (for short 'the trial court') in C.C.No.448/2001.
court below. After hearing both sides, the trial court framed charge under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. The charge was read over and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty.
Crl.R.P.1022/06
-:3:-
On the side of the prosecution, PWs1 to 3 were examined and Exts. P1 to P5 were marked. MO1 was identified. No defence evidence was adduced. On appreciation of the evidence, the court below found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and he was convicted for the said offence. The trial court sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of 1,00,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. In appeal, the appellate court upheld the conviction and modified the sentence as “to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of 1,00,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months”. Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below, the accused preferred this revision petition.
impeached the finding of guilt passed by the courts below on two grounds.
(1) The property list is not produced (2) No arrest memo is produced.
Crl.R.P.1022/06
-:4:-
Crl.R.P.1022/06
-:5:-
by the prosecution. The arrest memo is not seen produced in this case.
In the result, the criminal revision petition stands allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the courts below vide the impugned judgments are set aside. The revision petitioner is found not guilty of the offences charged against him and accordingly he is acquitted. His bail bond is cancelled.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
Rp
1 issue framed by the court
Whether conviction despite non-production of property list and arrest memo should be set aside.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramankutty v. Excise InspectorApplied¶35
Ramankutty v. Excise Inspector (2013 (3) KHC 308)
Sunil Kumar
State of Kerala
Kauser Edappagath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
