Anil vs State of Kerala

ANIL vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 02, 2019

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1865898

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/1865898
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice B.Sudheendra Kumar
Decided On: Jul 02, 2019
Case Number: CRL.A/1422/2006

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

ANIL

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....excise range, thiruvananthapuram,, by public prosecutor, high court of kerala. other present: sri.e.c.bineesh,pp this criminal appeal having been finally heard on 02.07.2019, the court on the same day passed the following: -2-judgmentthe appellant was convicted and sentenced by the court below under section 58 of the abkari act.2. the prosecution allegation is that on 28.7.1998 at about 10 a.m., the appellant was found in possession of five 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.smt.baby as the 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 sinceno forwarding note was produced and marked before the -3- court in this case, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. it appears that no forwarding note wasproduced and marked before the court in this case. therefore, it has to be held that the prosecution could not prove the tamper-proof despatch of the sample to the laboratory. in the said circumstances, 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. since the forwarding note was not produced and marked before the court, there is no link evidence to connect the appellant with the sample analysed in the laboratory. in view of the above reason, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below on the strength of ext.p6 certificate of chemical analysis, cannot be sustained and consequently, i set aside the same.-4- in the result, this 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. dl/

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF JULY 2019 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1941 CRL.A.No.1422 of 2006 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 1367/2001 of ADDITIONAL S.C.-TRIAL OF ABKARI ACT CASES,NEYYATTINKARA DATED 21-06- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 26/2001 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,NEYYATINKARA
APPELLANT/S: ANIL S/O.SAHADEVAN, KEEZHAPANNAKARA VEEDU,, MELEMKODE DESOM, NEMOM VILLAGE,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SMT.BABY M V, AMICUS CURIAE SRI.GEO PAUL SRI.SANU MATHEW RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE EXCISE INSPECTOR,, EXCISE RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. OTHER PRESENT: SRI.E.C.BINEESH,PP THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: -2-

JUDGMENT

The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the court below under Section 58 of the Abkari Act.

2. The prosecution allegation is that on 28.7.1998 at about 10 a.m., the appellant was found in possession of five 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.Smt.Baby as the 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

no forwarding note was produced and marked before the -3- court in this case, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. It appears that no forwarding note was

produced and marked before the court in this case. Therefore, it has to be held that the prosecution could not prove the tamper-proof despatch of the sample to the laboratory. In the said circumstances, 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. Since the forwarding note was not produced and marked before the court, there is no link evidence to connect the appellant with the sample analysed in the laboratory. In view of the above reason, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below on the strength of Ext.P6 certificate of Chemical Analysis, cannot be sustained and consequently, I set aside the same.

-4- In the result, this 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. dl/

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2019 Same Parties ANIL vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice B.Sudheendra Kumar