Appeal against conviction under Section 8(2) Abkari Act for transporting arrack. The forwarding note was not produced and officials who handled the sample in transit were not examined, breaking the chain of custody. The chemical analysis certificate had no evidentiary value and the accused was acquitted.
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
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
CRL.A NO. 1674 OF 2011
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.08.2011 IN SC NO.13 OF 2011 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-III),NORTH
PARAVUR
APPELLANT/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SEBASTIAN, S/O VARGHESE,
KALATHIPARAMBIL VEEDU,
GOTHURUTHY DESOM, CHENDAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
N. PARAVUR.
BY ADVS.
SRI.AMJAD ALI
SRI.B.H.ANSIL
SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA,
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE EXCISE INSPECTOR,
N. PARAVUR EXCISE RANGE,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
BY ADV.
SRI.G.SUDHEER
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.A.No.1674 of 2011
2
K.BABU, J.
Crl.A No. 1674 of 2011
Dated this the 20th day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.08.2011, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Court (Adhoc-III), North Paravur in S.C.No. 13/2011, 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 three months and pay a fine of Rs.1 Lakh.
bhagom in violation of the provisions of the Abkari Act.
Crl.A.No.1674 of 2011
3
Magistrate. The case was committed to the Sessions Court from 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.
Crl.A.No.1674 of 2011
4
appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
(i) The forwarding note/requisition for sending sample was not produced and marked.
(ii) The various officials who handled the sample during
the course of its transit from the Court to the laboratory were not examined.
Crl.A.No.1674 of 2011
5
KLT 793) while dealing with a case in which forwarding 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.
Crl.A.No.1674 of 2011
6
laboratory is fatal to the prosecution as prosecution failed to rule out the possibility of the sample being changed or tampered with.
Crl.A.No.1674 of 2011
7
Crl.A.No.1674 of 2011
8
The appeal is allowed as above.
K.BABU
VPK
1 issue framed by the court
Did the prosecution establish a tamper-proof chain of custody linking the seized arrack sample to the sample analysed at the Chemical Examiner's laboratory?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramachandran v. State of KeralaFollowed¶10
2021 (1) KLT 793
Vijay Pandey v. State of U.PRelied on¶15
AIR 2019 SC 3569 · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan v. Daulat RamRelied on¶16
AIR 1980 SC 1314 · Who else cites this
Sasidharan v. State of KeralaRelied on¶16
2007 (1) KHC 275
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sebastian, S/o Varghese
State of Kerala
K. BABU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court