The High Court acquited the appellant in a criminal appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of custody of seized arrack samples and lacked necessary sealing and forwarding documents to support the laboratory report.
The Criminal Appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the offence and set at liberty.
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 K. BABU
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1945
CRL.A NO. 1092 OF 2009
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 26.05.2009 IN SC NO.78 OF 2006 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANT:
RAJESH @ SOMAN
ANJIILIMOOTTIL VEEDU, PAZHAYAKAVU, KIZHAKKAN,
OTHARA MURI, ERAVIPEROOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK
BY ADV SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST.,, REP. BY PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI.SUDHEER P P
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
CRL.A NO. 1092 OF 2009
K.BABU, J .
CRL.A.No.1092 of 2009
Dated this the 1st day of March, 2024
J U D G M E N T
Aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.05.2009, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Court (Adhoc) Fast Track Court-II, Pathanamthitta, in Sessions Case No.78/2006, the accused has preferred this appeal. The appellant/accused was convicted under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and pay a fine of Rs.1 Lakh.
3
CRL.A NO. 1092 OF 2009
where it was made over to the trial court. On the appearance of the accused, charge was framed against him for the offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge, and therefore, he came to be tried by the trial court for the aforesaid offence.
4
CRL.A NO. 1092 OF 2009
prosecution failed to establish that the contraband seized from the place of occurrence eventually reached the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory.
i) Exhibit P1 seizure mahazar does not contain the nature and description of the seal stated to have been affixed on the bottle containing the sample.
ii) The specimen of the seal was not produced before
the Court and forwarded to the Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory for comparison.
Iii) The forwarding note was not produced and marked.
iv) The various officials who handled the sample during the course of its transit from the Court to the laboratory were not examined by the prosecution.
5
CRL.A NO. 1092 OF 2009
by the detecting officer. The detecting officer has also not given evidence as to the specific nature of the seal used by him. There is nothing to show that the specimen of the seal was forwarded to the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory for comparison. Forwarding note was not produced and marked.
6
CRL.A NO. 1092 OF 2009
note/requisition for sending sample to the laboratory was not produced and marked, this Court held that the prosecution could not establish the tamper-proof despatch of the sample to the laboratory as there was no satisfactory link evidence to show that it was the same sample that was drawn from the contraband seized eventually reached the Chemical Examiner's laboratory.
7
CRL.A NO. 1092 OF 2009
on the prosecution to prove that the sample allegedly seized from the accused eventually reached the hands of the Chemical Examiner in a tamper-proof condition. Relying on State of Rajastan v. Daulath Ram [AIR 1980 SC 1314] in Sasidharan (supra) this Court held that where sample changed several hands before reaching the Chemical Examiner, the prosecution had to necessarily examine the various officials who handled the sample to prove that while in their custody the seals on the sample have not been tampered with. In Sathi v. State of Kerala [2007 (1) ILR 718 (Ker.)], this Court re-emphasized on the requirement of strict compliance with the statutory formalities in the matter of sampling/sealing, etc. of the contraband to be sent for Chemical Examination. In Sathi (supra), this Court further held that Courts could presume that an official act was regularly and properly performed only if the said act was shown to have been performed. This Court specified that the presumption under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act has no application in circumstances where official acts are not shown to be performed properly. The ratio in Sasidharan (supra) and Sathi (supra) has been affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Ravi v. State
8
CRL.A NO. 1092 OF 2009
of Kerala [2011 (3) KLT 353] .
The Criminal Appeal is allowed as above.
Sd/-
K. BABU JUDGE
saap
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution established that the seized sample reached the Chemical Examiner without tampering.
Whether the absence of sealing details and forwarding notes invalidates the laboratory report.
Whether the conviction and sentence should be quashed due to evidentiary gaps.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhaskaran K. v. State of Kerala and anotherRelied on¶41
Bhaskaran K. v. State of Kerala and another (2020 KHC 5296)
Rajamma v. State of KeralaRelied on¶42
Rajamma v. State of Kerala [2014 (1) KLT 506]
Ramachandran v. State of KeralaRelied on¶43
Ramachandran v. State of Kerala [2021 (1) KLT 793)
Sasidharan v. State of KeralaRelied on¶48
Sasidharan v. State of Kerala [2007 (1) KLT 720]
State of Rajastan v. Daulath RamRelied on¶48
State of Rajastan v. Daulath Ram [AIR 1980 SC 1314] · Who else cites this
Sathi v. State of KeralaRelied on¶49
Sathi v. State of Kerala [2007 (1) ILR 718 (Ker.)] · Who else cites this
Ravi v. State of KeralaRelied on¶51
Ravi v. State of Kerala [2011 (3) KLT 353]
Vijay Pandey v. State of U.PRelied on¶56
Vijay Pandey v. State of U.P ( AIR 2019 SC 3569) · Who else cites this
RAJESH @ SOMAN
STATE OF KERALA
K. BABU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court