Dharmarajan vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 09, 2021

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1607307

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1607307
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice B.Sudheendra Kumar
Decided On: Mar 09, 2021
Case Number: CRL.A/1253/2006

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dharmarajan

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....a specimen seal sent separately for tamper proof despatch, the prosecution cannot be held to have brought home the offence against the appellant.”7. the division bench in ravi v. state of kerala [2011(3) klt 353] held that the prosecution in a case underthe abkari act could succeed only if it is shown that the contraband liquor which was allegedly seized from the accused ultimately reached the hands of the chemical examiner by change of hands in a tamper proof condition.8. since no forwarding note was produced and markedin this case, the prosecution could not establish the tamper-proof despatch of the sample to the laboratory. in the said circumstances, there is no satisfactory link evidence to show that it was the same sample which wasdrawn from the contraband seized from the appellant, which eventually reached the hands of the chemical examiner by change of hands in a crl.a.no.1253 of 2006 -4-tamper-proof condition. consequently, there is no link evidence connecting the appellant with the sample analysed in the laboratory. in the said circumstances, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below relying on ext. p5 certificate of chemical analysis cannot be sustained. in the result, this criminal appeal stands allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the court below and the appellant stands acquitted. the bail bond of the appellant stands discharged. sd/-b.sudheendra kumar, judge. ani/9/3/2021 /true copy/

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1942 CRL.A.No.1253 OF 2006 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 416/2001 DATED 18-05-2006 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR ABKARI ACT CASES, KOTTARAKKARA AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 14/2000 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III, PUNALUR APPELLANT/S: DHARMARAJAN, S/O DIVAKARAN,CHARUVILE PUTHEN VEEDU, PONGODU, KAMUKINCHERRY MURI,, PIDAVOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA TALUK,, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM. OTHER PRESENT: SMT. M.K.PUSHPALATHA, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.A.No.1253 OF 2006 -2-

JUDGMENT

The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the court below under Section 55(a) and (i) of the Abkari Act.

2. The prosecution allegation is that on 3-11-1999 at about 5.50 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of 1 litre of arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

3. Heard.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since no forwarding note was produced or marked in this case, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted.

5. It appears that no forwarding note was produced or marked in this case before the Court.

6. In Sasidharan v. State of Kerala [2007(1) KLT 720] , the Court observed thus:- “Without the link evidence of actual sampling by the concerned clerk of the court by drawing sample from the can and sending the CRL.A.No.1253 OF 2006 -3-

same in a sealed packet to the Chemical Examiner with a specimen seal sent separately for tamper proof despatch, the Prosecution cannot be held to have brought home the offence against the appellant.”

7. The Division Bench in Ravi v. State of Kerala [2011

(3) KLT 353] held that the prosecution in a case under

the Abkari Act could succeed only if it is shown that the contraband liquor which was allegedly seized from the accused ultimately reached the hands of the chemical examiner by change of hands in a tamper proof condition.

8. Since no forwarding note was produced and marked

in this case, the prosecution could not establish the tamper-proof despatch of the sample to the Laboratory. In the said circumstances, there is no satisfactory link evidence to show that it was the same sample which was

drawn      from     the   contraband      seized    from         the
appellant, which eventually reached the hands of                 the
Chemical      Examiner     by   change     of   hands      in     a
    CRL.A.No.1253 OF 2006                            -4-

tamper-proof condition. Consequently, there is no link evidence connecting the appellant with the sample analysed in the Laboratory. In the said circumstances, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below relying on Ext. P5 certificate of chemical analysis cannot be sustained. In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the court below and the appellant stands acquitted. The bail bond of the appellant stands discharged. Sd/-B.Sudheendra Kumar, Judge. ani/9/3/2021 /true copy/

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2021 Same Parties Dharmarajan vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice B.Sudheendra Kumar