High Court allowed criminal appeal, acquitting appellant convicted under Section 55(i) of Abkari Act for possessing Indian Made Foreign Liquor. Conviction set aside due to failure to establish chain of custody and link between seized substance and laboratory sample.
Accused acquitted of the alleged 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
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1945
CRL.A NO. 745 OF 2009
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.03.2009 IN SC NO.348 OF 2006 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK-III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
BABY @ AMBARAPPY, D/O.PUSHPANGATHAN, VANITHA BHAVAN, GANDHIPURAM, MELULLYAZHTHARA MURI, ULLYAZHTHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
BY ADV
SRI.G.SUDHEER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.03.2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.A No.745 of 2009
2
K.BABU, J.
Criminal Appeal No.745 of 2009
Dated this the 14th day of March, 2024
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.03.2009, passed by the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track No.III, Thiruvananthapuram in S.C.No.348/2006, the appellant/accused has preferred this appeal. The appellant was convicted under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one year and pay a fine of Rs.1 Lakh.
Foreign Liquor at Uliyazhathura Muri in Uliyazhathura village in violation of the provisions of the Abkari Act.
3
Crl.A No.745 of 2009
the accused, charge was framed against her for the offence punishable under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge, and therefore, she came to be tried by the Trial Court for the aforesaid offence.
appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
Crl.A No.745 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.
contain the nature and description of the seal stated to have been affixed on the
bottle containing the sample.
(ii) The various officials who handled the
sample during its transit from the Court to
the laboratory were not examined by the
prosecution.
5
Crl.A No.745 of 2009
produced before the Court at the time of production of the properties including the sample.
an Excise Guard by name Harikumar. The property clerk and the Excise Guard, who delivered the sample in the laboratory 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.745 of 2009
6
occurrence eventually reached the Chemical Examiner's
Laboratory, Ext.P9 Certificate of Chemical Analysis has no evidentiary value.
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] }.
Crl.A No.745 of 2009
7
evidence as discussed above.
The Criminal Appeal is allowed as above.
Sd/K.BABU, JUDGE
KAS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution proved the link between the seized contraband and the sample analyzed in the laboratory.
Whether the absence of non-examination of officials handling the sample vitiates the evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhaskaran K. v. State of Kerala and anotherApplied¶10
(2020 KHC 5296)
State of Rajasthan v. Daulat RamFollowed¶11
[AIR 1980 SC 1314] · Who else cites this
Vijay Pandey v. State of U.PFollowed¶13
(AIR 2019 SC 3569) · Who else cites this
Sasidharan v. State of KeralaFollowed¶61
[2007 (1) KHC 275]
3 provisions across 2 enactments
BABY @ AMBARAPPY
STATE OF KERALA
K. BABU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
