Allowed

Vikraman v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jul 2023Crl.Rev.Pet/599/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision petition, quashing the conviction of an accused under the Abkari Act. The court held that the absence of a mandatory forwarding note for the seized arrack samples broke the chain of evidence, making it impossible to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition allowed; conviction and sentence in C.C.No.374/1997 confirmed in Crl.Appeal No.122/2001 set aside.

Vikraman Vs the State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1945

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO. 599 OF 2005

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 18.02.2005 IN CRA 122/2001
OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, FAST TRACK COURT-II,

¶7

PATHANAMTHITTA

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED :

¶9

VIKRAMAN

¶10

S/O.VELAYUDHAN, VALLITHUNDIL VEEDU,
KADAMPANADU VADAKKU MURI,
KADAMPANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR THALUK.

¶11

BY ADVS.
SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR
SMT.LEENA KRISHNAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

¶13

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶14

2 EXCISE RANGE INSPECTOR ADOOR.

¶15

BY ADV SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR C.V.PRABHAKHARAN

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 05.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶17

CRL.REV.PET NO. 599 OF 2005

¶18

¶19

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J

¶20

......…..................................

¶21

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.599 of 2005

¶22

…..................................

¶23

Dated this the 5^th day of July, 2023

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.374/1997 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor. He was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, 1077 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-

¶26

in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months more.

¶27

In appeal, to the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc) Fast Track Court-II, Pathanamthitta, as Crl.Appeal No.122/2001, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner has approached this Court under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶28

According to the prosecution, on 23.12.1996, while the Excise Officials were patrolling through the road in Adoor they found

¶29

¶30

CRL.REV.PET NO. 599 OF 2005

¶31

the accused in possession of 1 ½ litres of arrack carried in a

¶32

jerry can and the accused thereby committed the offence alleged.

¶33

In order to prove the prosecution case, they examined PW 1 to PW5 and marked Ext.P1 to Ext.P4. The learned Magistrate, after analysing the evidence adduced, found the accused guilty and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as mentioned above. The conviction and sentence were subsequently confirmed by the appellate court also.

¶34

The sole point raised by Sri.M.Narendra Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, was that the forwarding note, which was one of the mandatory requirements for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, had not even been produced or marked in evidence and the same being fatal to the prosecution case, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. Though various

¶35

other contentions were raised on behalf of the revision petitioner, since the contention regarding the absence of forwarding note was significant, the same is considered.

¶36

Sri.C.N.Prabhakharan, the learned Public Prosecutor, while

¶37

CRL.REV.PET NO. 599 OF 2005

¶38

¶39

referring to the judgment of the appellate court where specific references were made to contents of the forwarding notes argued that in the peculiar facts of the case, the absence of producing the forwarding note in evidence ought not to be treated as fatal.

¶40

The forwarding note is a crucial link that connects the sample of contraband seized from the accused and sent for chemical

¶41

analysis. In the absence of a forwarding note, the link that connects the accused with the contraband snaps. Reference in this context to the decisions in Sathi v. State of Kerala 2007 (1) KHC 778 and the recent decision in Kumaran Narayanan and Others v. State of Kerala 2022(3) KLJ 982 are relevant.

¶42

Perusal of the documents marked in evidence as Exts.P1 to P4 reveals that only four documents were marked by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. In those documents, forwarding note is significantly absent. Merely because the appellate court referred in its judgment, about a reference letter dated 08.05.1997 and the seal found on the sample bottle tallying with the sample seal provided is not

¶43

CRL.REV.PET NO. 599 OF 2005

¶44

¶45

sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable

¶46

doubt.

¶47

As mentioned earlier, absence of the forwarding note is fatal to the prosecution case. The forwarding note is not seen marked at all in evidence. Therefore, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and the prosecution cannot be said to have proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

¶48

In the above circumstances, the revision petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused in C.C.No.374/1997 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor; as confirmed in Crl.Appeal No.122/2001 on the files of the Addl.District and Sessions

¶49

Court (Adhoc) Fast Track Court-II, Pathanamthitta; is set aside. The revision petition is allowed as above.

sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

JUDGE

AMV/06/07/2023

Vikraman v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikraman v. the 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

Madhu.v.R Vs State of Kerala Represented by the Principal Secretary to Government

Ambujakshan Vs State of Kerala

George Antony Vs State of Kerala

S.Kunjappan Vs Food Inspector,Kozhikode

Dr Judith Mattakkal Jose Vs State of Kerala

Prasad Babu Vs State of Tamil Nadu