Kerala High Court
Radhakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 27 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 5TH BHADRA, 1943
CRL.A NO. 1802 OF 2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 637/2003 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOLLAM, KOLLAM
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1:
RADHAKRISHNAN
S/O.VASUDEVAN, VISHNU BHAVANAM VEEDU,
ADINADU THEKKUM MURI,
ADINADU THEKKU VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY.
BY ADV SRI.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF EXCISE RANGE,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA., (CRIME NO.115/2000 OF
KARUNAGAPPALLY EXCISE RANGE)
BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.A NO. 1802 OF 2006 2
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed challenging the conviction and
sentence imposed on the appellant/accused, who was the first
accused in S.C.No.637/2003 on the file of the Additional District
and Sessions Judge (Adhoc II), Kollam.
2. The gist of the prosecution case is that the appellant
together with the 2nd accused was found in possession of 15 litres
of arrack on the premise of a private residence. The incident
occurred on 7.9.2000. The final report was filed in the matter on
21.6.2002, alleging commission of offence punishable under
Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. Following the plea of not guilty,
trial was conducted and the first accused was found guilty and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two
years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,0000/- and in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year.
3. Sri.T.Gopalakrishnan, the learned counsel for the
appellant would contend that the appeal is liable to be allowed on
a short point. He submits that there is an inordinate delay in
filing of the final report in the matter. Though the incident
occurred on 7.9.2000, the final report in the matter filed before
the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally only on
21.6.2002. The learned counsel would submit that the
investigating officer, who was examined in the matter as PW1,
has not offered any convincing explanation for the inordinate
delay in completing the investigation and filing of the final report.
With reference to the judgment of this Court in Chandran v.
State (2016(4) KLT 727), it is contended that long and
inordinate delay in filing a final report is itself a ground to acquit
the accused.
4. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.
5. A perusal of the lower court records in this case will
show that as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant, the final report in respect of an incident, which took
place on 7.9.2000, was filed in the court only on 21.6.2002. There
is long and inordinate delay in filing of the final report. Section
50(i) of the Abkari Act also requires that an investigation into
abkari offences to be completed without any delay. The long and
inordinate delay in completing and filing of the final report itself
is a ground to acquit the accused (Also see: Krishnan H. v. State
(2015(1) KHC 822). Though the learned counsel for the
appellant has briefly pointed out other circumstances which
would also result in the conviction and sentence being held to be
unsustainable, I do not propose to examine any of these
contentions since I am convinced that this appeal is liable to be
allowed on the short point noticed above.
In the result, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and
sentence imposed on the appellant in S.C.No.637/2003 on the file
of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Adhoc II), Kollam is
set aside. The appellant/1st accused will stand acquitted.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
ab
