The High Court set aside the conviction for possession of arrack under Section 55(a) & (i) of the Abkari Act because the prosecution failed to explain the month-long delay in producing the seized contraband before the court.
Conviction and sentence set aside; Crl. Appeal allowed.
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 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1945
CRL.A NO. 411 OF 2008
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SC 1377/2005 OF ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC) COURT-1, KOLLAM
APPELLANT/ACCUSED :
KUNJUMON, S/O.GEVARGHESE UNNOONNI,
PALAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MULAVANA CHERI,
MULAVANA VILLAGE.
BY ADV KUNJUMON (PARTY IN PERSON)
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :
STATE OF KERALA
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
SR.GP.SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN
STATE BRIEF-SRI.SOORAJ KRISHNA
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.A NO. 411 OF 2008
2
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
......…..................................
Crl.Appeal No.411 of 2008
…..................................
Dated this the 28th day of March, 2023
JUDGMENT
Appellant was the accused in S.C.No.1377/2005 on the files of the Additional Sessions (Adhoc) Court-I, Kollam. He was found
guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 55(a) &
CRL.A NO. 411 OF 2008
3
that PW3 had deposed that, he did not submit the property
CRL.A NO. 411 OF 2008
4
seized to the court on the same day itself because of the workload. However, the delay is one month and no explanation is deposed for such a long delay.
no statutory mandate to produce the property before the court forthwith but what is required is that the seizure of the property should be reported to the court forthwith. Even though, the production of the contraband is not required to be done immediately, that cannot give a freehand to the Investigating Officer to produce the property seized, leisurely, particularly when the nature and contents of the property seized will have to be established through chemical analysis. The need for such property to reach the court without unreasonable delay is essential and the delay, if caused is required to be explained properly.
concerned. There is also a chance of such property even
CRL.A NO. 411 OF 2008
5
getting misplaced. Therefore proper explanation ought to be offered by the Officer, who is responsible for the delayed production of the contraband.
CRL.A NO. 411 OF 2008
6
possession of the same, until production before court.
The Crl.Appeal is allowed.
sd/-
AMV/05/04/2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether delayed production of seized contraband without explanation vitiates the prosecution case?
Whether the conviction is sustainable on the evidence produced considering procedural lapses?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ravi v. State of KeralaFollowed¶28
2011 (3) KLT 353
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Kunjumon, S/o. Gevarghese Unnoonni
State of Kerala
Bechu Kuriann Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Bechu Kuriann Thomas
Parties & counsel