Vinod vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 11432 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

    THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                      CRL.A.No.2409 OF 2006

  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 855/2000 DATED 18-11-2006 OF
 ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK III), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 94/2000 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
                      FIRST CLASS, ATTINGAL



APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

             VINOD
             S/O.RAMANUJAN,
             SHEEBA BHAVAN, MEVARKKAL DESOM,
             MEVARKKAL DESOM, ALAMCODE VILLAGE,
             FROM LISY BHAVAN, PUTHENKADAVU,
             CHERUNNIYOOR VILLAGE,
             CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK.

             BY ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR


RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

             STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
             ERNAKULAM.

             BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S.L SYLAJA


     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.04.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.A.No.2409 OF 2006

                                          2



                                  JUDGMENT

Dated this the 8th day of April 2021

The accused in S.C.No.855/2000 on the file of the

Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track III),

Thiruvananthapuram has filed this appeal being

aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.11.2006, whereby he

has been found guilty of offence under Section 55(a) of

the Abkari Act and convicted and sentenced to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to

pay a fine of ₹1,00,000/- and in default of payment of

fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further

period of 6 months.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on

10.11.1999 under the leadership of CW4, PW1 and others

were conducting patrol duty, at 11.45 p.m., and they

found the accused in possession of a jerry can

containing 30 litres of spirit and a sack containing 2

cover sealing machines and 400 empty plastic covers of

200 ml capacity each. The prosecution examined PW1 to

PW4 before the court below and Exts.P1 to P9 were CRL.A.No.2409 OF 2006

marked. On the basis of the evidence on record, the

court below found the accused guilty of the offence and

convicted him and imposed on him the sentence referred

above.

3. Heard.

4. Even though several grounds have been raised in

the memorandum of appeal, on going through the records,

I find that the appellant is entitled to succeed on the

sole ground that the forwarding note does not bear the

impression of the specimen seal used for sealing the

sample sent for chemical analysis. This Court has held

that the absence of the seal will lead to a situation

where this Court cannot hold that the prosecution has

proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the sample

which was collected at the scene of occurrence had

reached the Chemical Examiner for analysis in a tamper

proof condition. [see Ravi v. State of Kerala (2018

(5) KHC 352), Balachandran V. State of Kerala (2020

(3) KHC 697) & Smithesh V. State of Kerala (2019 (2)

KLT 974)].

CRL.A.No.2409 OF 2006

5. In the light of the law laid down by this Court

and on the facts of this case, the appellant is

entitled to succeed. Hence the judgment dated

18.11.2006 in S.C.No.855/2000 on the file of the

Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track III),

Thiruvananthapuram is set aside. The appellant is

acquitted and set at liberty. The bail bonds, if any,

executed by the appellant or on his behalf are

cancelled.

This appeal stands allowed.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI, JUDGE

Pn