The Kerala High Court allowed the revision petition and acquitted the appellant in illicit liquor manufacturing case. Setting aside prior convictions for lack of procedural documents showing seal identity, absence of forwarding note, and quantity discrepancies.
Impugned judgments set aside; Appellant acquitted; Bail cancelled setting her at liberty forthwith.
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 MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
CRL.REV.PET NO. 432 OF 2008
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 495/2003 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS
COURT, THRISSUR
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 794/2006 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
PARUKUTTY
W/O.KANDAN, KALETHEPARAMBIL DESOM,
THIRUVILLWAMALA VILLAGE,
TALAPPILLY TALUK,
THRISSUR DT.
BY ADVS.
SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI
SMT.SINDHU MANOJ
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP- SRI.RENJIT GEORGE
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 432 OF 2008
..2..
ORDER
This revision is at the instance of the 1st accused in S.C. No.495 of 2003 on the file of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Thrissur, assailing the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.794 of 2006, on the file of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court-I, Thrissur, which upheld her conviction and sentence under Sections 55(b) and 55(g) of the Abkari Act.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 432 OF 2008
..3..
produced before the Excise Inspector, where crime was registered against the revision petitioner and her husband under Sections 55(b) and 55(g) of the Abkari Act. PW6 investigated the case and laid charge sheet against them.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 432 OF 2008
..4..
court found the 2nd accused not guilty of the offences alleged, and he was acquitted. The 1st accused was found guilty under Sections 55(b) and 55(g) of the Abkari Act, and she was convicted thereunder. A common sentence was seen given for both the offences, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.1 lakh, with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 432 OF 2008
..5..
CRL.REV.PET NO. 432 OF 2008
..6..
CRL.REV.PET NO. 432 OF 2008
..7..
seal in the seizure mahazar, the genuineness of the seal found in the sample bottle lose its authenticity. The prosecution was duty bound to establish beyond any shadow of doubt that the sample which was taken from the contraband, allegedly seized from the possession of the revision petitioner, was the sample which reached the chemical examiner’s laboratory for analysis. Since there is no specimen impression of the seal in the seizure mahazar, we cannot say that, the seal found on the sample bottle was affixed at the time of taking the sample, immediately after the seizure. Since a genuine doubt arises as to the seal affixed on the sample bottle, the revision petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of that doubt. PWs.4 and 5, the excise officials in the detection team, did not give any evidence as to the nature of the seal used in the sample bottle. The nature of the seal used, will not find a place in the seizure mahazar also.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 432 OF 2008
..8..
quantity of arrack seized at the place of occurrence was only 500 ml, out of which 180 ml was taken as sample. So, the balance could have been only 320 ml of arrack, after taking the sample. But, MO4 produced before the trial court was 500 ml of illicit arrack in a 750 ml bottle. That discrepancy in the quantity of arrack, also is casting a doubt regarding the genuineness of the prosecution case.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 432 OF 2008
..9..
the seal or not.
5296 ] this Court held that, the specimen of the seal shall be provided in the seizure mahazar and also in the forwarding note, so as to enable the court, to satisfy the genuineness of the sample produced before the court. As we have seen, the detecting officer did not give any evidence as to the nature of the seal used in the seizure mahazar and in the forwarding note, and so, it cannot be found that there was tamper proof despatch of the sample. In the absence of forwarding note, it has to be held that prosecution failed to establish the link evidence. [See Balachandran v. State of Kerala 2020 (4) KLT 137].
CRL.REV.PET NO. 432 OF 2008
..10..
detection. Ext.P1 seizure mahazar, says that, when the excise officials reached the house, the revision petitioner was burning firewood for the purpose of distilling arrack. PWs.1 and 2, the independent witnesses, turned hostile to the prosecution, and they did not support the prosecution case that, the revision petitioner was found distilling arrack at her house. There is nothing to show that, she was the person, who was distilling illicit arrack, except the fact that, she was found in that house.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 432 OF 2008
..11..
hereby set aside. The revision petitioner is found not guilty of the offences alleged under Sections 55(b) and 55(g) of the Abkari Act, and she is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. Her bail bond is cancelled and she is set at libert y forthwith.
The revision petition accordingly stands allowed.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE
LU
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner under the Abkari Act should be set aside due to material defects in the prosecution case, including absence of specimen seal impressions
Whether the revision petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt arising from discrepancies in seized quantity and hostile independent witnesses?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhaskaran v. State of KeralaApplied¶15
Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala [2020 KHC 5296]
Balachandran v. State of KeralaReferred¶15
Balachandran v. State of Kerala 2020 (4) KLT 137
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Parukutty
State of Kerala
Sophy Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court