Sasi vs State of Kerala

SASI vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Nov 19, 2020

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1745579

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/1745579
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice B.Sudheendra Kumar
Decided On: Nov 19, 2020
Case Number: CRL.A/1938/2006

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

SASI

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....ernakulam. smt.m.k.pushpalatha,sr.public prosecutor this criminal appeal having been finally heard on 19.11.2020, the court on the same day delivered the following: -2-judgmentthe appellant was convicted and sentenced by the court below under section 55(a) of the abkari act.2. the prosecution allegation is that on 06.01.2000 at about 5.30 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of 1.3 litres of arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the abkari act.3. since there is no representation for the appellant, this court has appointed adv.seena k, as amicus curiae to argue the case for the appellant.4. heard the learned amicus curiae and the learned public prosecutor.5. the learned amicus curiae has argued that since there was unexplained delay in producing the contraband and the sample before the court, the -3-6. it appears that the incident in this case wason 06.01.2000. pw1 stated that he produced the contraband and the sample before the court. the evidence of pw1 would show that the contraband and the sample were received by the court on 10.01.2000. ext.p7 is the property list, which would also show that the contraband and the sample were received in the court only on 10.01.2000. no explanation was given by pw1 for the delay in producing the contraband andsample before the court. the delay as such is not always fatal to the prosecution case. however, if the delay is not explained by the prosecution, the same is, no doubt, fatal to the prosecution case. it appears that the accused was produced before the court on 07.01.2000. it is not discernible as to why the contraband and the sample could not produced before the court along with the accused on 07.01.2000 even -4- though the contraband involved in this case is only 1.3 litres. in this case, since there was unexplained delay from 06.01.2000 to 10.01.2000 in producing the contraband and the sample before the court, there cannot be any guarantee that the sample produced before the court and analysed in.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1942 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 311/2002 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), MAVELIKKARA APPELLANT/ACCUSED: SASI AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.VASU, THUNDATHIL PADATHETHIL VEEDU KUTTAMPEROOR MURI, MANNAR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.VINOD BY ADV. SEENA K,AMICUS CURIAE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY BPUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM. SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA,SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2-

JUDGMENT

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

2. The prosecution allegation is that on 06.01.2000 at about 5.30 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of 1.3 litres of arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

3. Since there is no representation for the appellant, this Court has appointed Adv.Seena K, as Amicus Curiae to argue the case for the appellant.

4. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned Amicus Curiae has argued that since there was unexplained delay in producing the contraband and the sample before the court, the -3-

6. It appears that the incident in this case was

on 06.01.2000. PW1 stated that he produced the contraband and the sample before the court. The evidence of PW1 would show that the contraband and the sample were received by the court on 10.01.2000. Ext.P7 is the property list, which would also show that the contraband and the sample were received in the court only on 10.01.2000. No explanation was given by PW1 for the delay in producing the contraband and

sample before the court. The delay as such is not always fatal to the prosecution case. However, if the delay is not explained by the prosecution, the same is, no doubt, fatal to the prosecution case. It appears that the accused was produced before the court on 07.01.2000. It is not discernible as to why the contraband and the sample could not produced before the court along with the accused on 07.01.2000 even -4- though the contraband involved in this case is only 1.3 litres. In this case, since there was unexplained delay from 06.01.2000 to 10.01.2000 in producing the contraband and the sample before the court, there cannot be any guarantee that the sample produced before the court and analysed in the laboratory was the sample drawn from the contraband seized from the appellant, particularly when the quantity involved in this case is only 1.3 litres. In the said circumstances, the 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 Nkr/19.11.2020

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2020 Same Parties SASI vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice B.Sudheendra Kumar