Prasannan, S/O. Kunju Pillai vs State Rep. By The Public ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 17516 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
     THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 4TH BHADRA, 1943
                         CRL.A NO. 1084 OF 2007
 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN S.C.No.259/2005 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &
    SESSIONS JUDGE (AD-HOC)FAST TRACK COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED:

            PRASANNAN, S/O. KUNJU PILLAI,
            MURUPPEL VEEDU, KUMARAMPEROOR, VADAKKEKARA MURI,,
            CHITTAR, SEETHATHODU VILLAGE.

            BY ADV SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE



RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

            STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
            HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

            BY SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER




     THIS   CRIMINAL   APPEAL   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
26.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.A NO. 1084 OF 2007
                                     2




                               JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the 1 st accused in S.C.No.259 of

2005 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Ad-Hoc)

Fast Track Court - I, Pathanamthitta. The appellant/ 1 st accused was

convicted of an offence under Section 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act.

2. The gist of the prosecution case is that PW5, the Sub

Inspector of Police, Chittar Police Station, obtained reliable

information that the appellant/1st accused along with three others

were engaged in brewing of arrack on the south side of the estate

known as Velimala estate. On reaching the spot, PW5 and the Police

constables accompanying him found that the appellant/1 st accused

and three others were engaging in brewing of illicit arrack. Though all

the accused attempted to escape, the appellant/1 st accused fell down

and was arrested on the spot. He gave information regarding the

identity of the other accused, which led to their apprehension also. A

certain quantity of arrack and wash used for preparation of arrack

was also recovered. Following the investigation, a final report was

filed. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, where a charge

was framed alleging the commission of offences under Sections 8(1)

and (2) and 55(g) of the Abkari Act.

3. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 5, marked Exts.P1 to CRL.A NO. 1084 OF 2007

P14 and material objects 1 to 5.

4. On going through the records it seems that this appeal

can be decided on a short point. Ext.P8 is the forwarding note,

through which the samples were forwarded to the Chemical Examiner

for analysis. A perusal of Ext.P8 it is seen that the space provided for

affixing the sample seal has been left blank. It is a settled law that

the forwarding note must bear the sample of the seal affixed on the

samples drawn. In the absence of such seal, this Court has taken the

view that the identity of the sample will become suspect [see

Prakasan v. State of Kerala 2016(1)KLT SN.89].

The report of the Chemical Examiner is a crucial piece of

evidence, which is one of the main ingredients to establish the guilt of

the accused. When the identity of the sample cannot be established

beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to be acquitted.

Thus, without going into any other point, the conviction and sentence

imposed on the appellant / 1st accused in S.C No.259 of 2005 on the

file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge(Ad-Hoc) Fast Track

Court - I, Pathanamthitta is set aside and the appellant / 1 st accused

is acquitted.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE DK