The Kerala High Court allowed an appeal against conviction for possession of arrack. The Court acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the link between the seized substance and the laboratory report due to missing seal verification and unexamined transit officials.
The accused is acquitted of the offence alleged 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
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1945
CRL.A NO. 1093 OF 2009
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.903 OF 2007 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK-II (ADHOC), THRISSUR APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
LILLY, AGED 56, MANGALAPPILLY HOUSE, PARIYARAM, KONNAKKUZHI DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR SRI.HARIDAS P.NAIR SRI.M.RAJESH KUMAR SMT.K.L.SREEKALA SRI.M.A.VINOD
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV SRI.G.SUDHEER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.A No.1093 of 2009
2
K.BABU, J.
Criminal Appeal No.1093 of 2009
Dated this the 13th day of March, 2024
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.05.2009, passed by the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track No.II (ADHOC), Thrissur in S.C.No.903/2007, the appellant/accused has preferred this appeal. The appellant was convicted under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of two years and pay a fine of Rs.1 Lakh.
The case was committed to the Sessions Court, from where it was made over to the Trial Court. On the appearance of the accused,
Crl.A No.1093 of 2009
3
charges were framed against her for the offences punishable under Sections 8(2) and 55(i) of the Abkari Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges, and therefore, she came to be tried by the Trial Court for the aforesaid offences.
appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
Crl.A No.1093 of 2009
4
prosecution failed to establish that the contraband substance allegedly seized from the place of occurrence eventually reached the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory.
(i) Exhibit P3 seizure mahazar does not contain
the nature and description of the seal stated to have been affixed on the bottle containing the sample.
before the Court to ensure the genuineness of the sample.
(iii) The various officials who handled the sample
during its transit from the Court to the laboratory were not examined by the prosecution.
detecting officer had prepared Ext.P3 seizure mahazar. Exhibit P3
does not contain the nature and description of the seal stated to
5
Crl.A No.1093 of 2009
have been affixed on the bottle containing the sample. The
detecting officer has not given evidence as to the nature of the seal used. There is nothing to show that the specimen of the seal was produced before the Court and forwarded to the Chemical Examiner for comparison.
and forwarded to the laboratory as per letter dated 17.01.2007 of the
6
Crl.A No.1093 of 2009
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakkudy by a Police Constable No.5666. The sample remained in the custody of the property clerk and the Police official, who delivered the sample in the laboratory. Those officials were not examined by the prosecution to rule out the possibility of the sample being changed or tampered with. Non-examination of those officials is fatal to the prosecution. This view is fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram [AIR 1980 SC 1314].
Crl.A No.1093 of 2009
7
can succeed only if it is proved that the sample which was analysed in the Chemical Examiner's laboratory was the very same sample which was drawn from the contraband substance said to have been seized from the possession of the accused {Vide: State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram [AIR 1980 SC 1314], Sasidharan v. State of Kerala [2007 (1) KHC 275] }.
The appeal is allowed as above.
Sd/K.BABU, JUDGE
KAS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution established the chain of custody linking the seized arrack to the chemical analysis report.
Whether the absence of a seal specimen and non-examination of transit officials renders the chemical analysis inconclusive.
Whether the accused is entitled to acquittal due to benefit of doubt regarding the identity of the seized contraband.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhaskaran K. v. State of Kerala and anotherRelied on¶10
(2020 KHC 5296)
Rajamma v. State of KeralaRelied on¶11
[2014 (1) KLT 506]
State of Rajasthan v. Daulat RamRelied on¶12
AIR 1980 SC 1314 · Who else cites this
Vijay Pandey v. State of U.PRelied on¶15
(AIR 2019 SC 3569) · Who else cites this
Sasidharan v. State of KeralaRelied on¶16
[2007 (1) KHC 275]
4 provisions across 2 enactments
LILLY
STATE OF KERALA
K. BABU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
