RADHAKRISHNAN. S/O. VASUDEVAN, v. STATE OF KERALA
Court: High Court of Kerala
Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Kerala judgment dated 2020-12-07. RADHAKRISHNAN. S/O. VASUDEVAN, v. STATE OF KERALA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942 CRL. A. No. 1640 OF 2006 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 865/2004 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT(ADHOC)III, KOLLAM AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 86/2003 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, KARUNAGAPPALLY APPELLANT/ACCUSED: RADHAKRISHNAN. S/O. VASUDEVAN, VISHNU BHAVANATHIL, ADINADU THEKKUM MURI, ADINADU THEKKU VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI. T. GOPALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE RANGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. SMT. M. K. PUSHPALATHA. SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07. 12. 2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CRL. A. No. 1640 OF 2006 -2- JUDGMENT The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the court below under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. 2.
The prosecution allegation is that on 14. 02. 2002 at about 12. 15 p. m. , the appellant was found in possession of 5 litres of arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the Abakari Act. 3. Heard. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since no forwarding note was marked and proved in this case, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. 5. It appears that no forwarding note was marked and proved in this case. 6. In Sasidharan v. State of Kerala [2007 (1) KLT 720], the Court observed thus: CRL. A. No. 1640 OF 2006 -3- “Without the link evidence of actual sampling by the concerned clerk of the court by drawing sample from the can and sending the 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. In Ravi v.
State of Kerala [2011 (3) KLT 353], the Division Bench of this Court 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 marked and proved 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 CRL. A. No. 1640 OF 2006 -4-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 tamper-proof condition. Consequently, there is no link evidence to connect the appellant with the sample analysed in the laboratory. In the said circumstances, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.
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/07. 12. 2020
Source: High Court of Kerala. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.