Kerala High Court
Ramachandran @ Raman vs State Of Kerala on 3 July, 2025
2025:KER:48400
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
RD
THURSDAY, THE 3 DAY OF JULY 2025 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 278 OF 2014
CRIME NO.115/2009 OF AMBALAPPUZHA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CP NO.17 OF 2009 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS, AMBALAPUZHA ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
03.03.2014 IN SC NO.697 OF 2009 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-
II, ALAPPUZHA
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
RAMACHANDRAN @ RAMAN
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O.GOVINDAN, ETTILCHIRA HOUSE,
KUNJUPADOM SOUTH P O, ALAPPUZHA
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.X.VARGHESE
SHRI.A.V.JOJO
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31
ADV.
SMT.M.S.HASNAMOL, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN COME UP FOR HEARING ON
01.07.2025, THE COURT ON 03.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A NO. 278 OF 2014
2025:KER:48400
2
JUDGMENT
The sole accused in S.C.No.697 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Alappuzha, has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against him in the said case for an offence punishable under Section 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the Kerala Abkari Act. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that, on 26.02.2009, at 08:10 pm, the accused was found possessing 900 ml of coloured liquor and engaged in the sale of the same by standing at a road infront of a sawmill of one Ponnappan, in contravention of the provisions contained under the Kerala Abkari Act. Hence, the accused is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the Kerala Abkari Act. 3. After completion of the investigation, the final report was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ambalapuzha. On being satisfied that this case was one exclusively triable by a court of session, the learned Magistrate after complying with all necessary formalities, committed the case to the court of Session, Alappuzha, under Section 209 CRL.A NO. 278 OF 2014 2025:KER:48400 3 Cr.PC. The learned Sessions Judge after taking cognizance, made over the case for trial and disposal to the Additional Sessions Judge II, Alappuzha. On appearance of the accused before the trial court the learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing both sides under Section 227 Cr.PC. and perusing the records, framed a written charge against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the Kerala Abkari Act. When the charge was read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution in its bid to prove the charge levelled against the accused has altogether examined six witnesses as PW1 to PW6 and marked Exts.P1 to P11. MO1 to MO3 series were exhibited and identified. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.PC. On questioning, the accused denied all the incriminating materials brought out against him in evidence. Thereafter, the learned Additional Sessions Judge heard both sides under Section 232 Cr.PC and as it was not a case of no evidence, the accused was not acquitted under Section 232 CRL.A NO. 278 OF 2014 2025:KER:48400 4 Cr.PC. He was then directed to enter on his defence and adduce any evidence he may have in support thereof. However, from the side of the accused, no evidence whatsoever was produced. After hearing both sides in detail, the trial court found the accused guilty of an offence punishable under Section 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the Kerala Abkari Act and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakhs with a default clause to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the finding of guilt, judgment of conviction, and order of sentence, the accused has come up with an appeal.
5. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accused is totally innocent of the allegations levelled against him and that he was falsely implicated in this case. According to the counsel, the accused had no connection whatsoever with the contraband allegedly seized in this case, and he was implicated on the basis of summaries and conjectures. According to the CRL.A NO. 278 OF 2014 2025:KER:48400 5 counsel in the case at hand, there is absolutely no material to show that the sample of the arack that got analysed in the laboratory is the very same sample drawn from the contraband seized in this case. It is pointed out that, in the Mahazar, the sample seal or specimen impression of the seal allegedly used is nowhere affixed. In short, the crux of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is patent flaw in the manner in which the seizure and sampling procedures were carried out in this case and that the sample was not produced before the court in a foolproof manner. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that all the procedural formalities to avoid future allegations of manipulation were scrupulously complied with in this case. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the sample was drawn at the spot of detection itself, and was produced before the court on the very next day. It is pointed out that, since there was no delay in producing the sample before the court, there is no room for any manipulations or tampering.
7. A perusal of the records reveals that, in order to prove CRL.A NO. 278 OF 2014 2025:KER:48400 6 the charge levelled against the accused, the prosecution mainly relies on the evidence of the detecting officer and the documentary evidence produced in this case. This case was detected by the Sub Inspector of Police, Ambalappuzha, on 26.02.2009. When the detecting officer was examined as PW4, he had narrated the entire sequence of events relating to the detection of the contraband and its seizure procedures. The seizure Mahazar prepared contemporaries with the detection of the contraband was marked as P6.
8. The independent witnesses cited and examined by the prosecution as PW1 & 2 to prove the alleged detection of the contraband turned hostile to the prosecution by deposing that they did not witness the incident in this case. While considering the question whether the hostility shown by the independent witness had any serious bearing on the outcome of the case, it is to be noted that it is a common occurrence that the independent witnesses in Abkari cases are turning hostile to the prosecution in almost all cases for reasons best known to them. However, through a series of judicial pronouncements, it is well settled CRL.A NO. 278 OF 2014 2025:KER:48400 7 that the hostility shown by independent witnesses in Abkari cases is of little significance, if the evidence of the official witnesses, including the detecting officer, is found to be convincing and reliable. Notably, in the case at hand, there is nothing to indicate that the detecting officer bore any grudge or animosity towards the accused that would motivate him to falsely implicate the accused in a case of this nature. 9. However, when a court is called upon to rely solely on the evidence of the detecting officer, the court must act with much care and circumspection. It is incumbent upon the prosecution to satisfy the court that all the procedures relating to the search, seizure, and sampling of the contraband were carried out in foolproof manner, thereby ruling out any possibility of tampering. Nevertheless, in the case at hand, a bare perusal of Ext.P6 Mahazar reveals that neither the sample seal nor the specimen impression of the seal allegedly used by the detecting officer for sealing the sample is mentioned in the Mahazar. The absence of a sample seal or specimen impression of the seal in the seizure Mahazar is certainly a circumstance to doubt the CRL.A NO. 278 OF 2014 2025:KER:48400 8 identity of the sample drawn and the identity of the sample got analyzed by the chemical examiner.
10. Likewise, in Ext.P6 seizure Mahazar, nothing is mentioned about the procedures of sampling and sealing which was adopted. During the examination before the court, PW4, the detecting officer, had not given any evidence regarding the nature of the seal used for sealing the samples as well as the residue of the arrack allegedly seized in this case. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to prove that the seizure and sampling were done in a foolproof manner. In the absence of convincing evidence regarding proper sampling and sealing, it could not be said that the sample collected at the time of detection is the same sample that was later examined in the chemical examiner's laboratory. In the above circumstances, it is found that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving the case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 8(2) CRL.A NO. 278 OF 2014 2025:KER:48400 9 r/w 8(1) of Kerala Abkari Act is set aside and he is acquitted. Fine amount, if any, has been deposited by the appellant/accused, the same shall be refunded to him in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
rkr