Kerala High Court
Gopalakrishnan Unnithan vs State Of Kerala on 7 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942
CRL.A.No.2352 OF 2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08-11-2006 IN SC 157/2004 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (AD HOC), FAST TRACK COURT-III,
PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANT/ ACCUSED :
GOPALAKRISHNAN UNNITHAN,
S/O.LATE GOVINDAN UNNITHAN,
AGED 67 YEARS, G.K.SADANAM VEEDU,
ELAMANNOOR KARA, ENALIMANGALAM VILLAGE,
ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST.
BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SAJEEV
RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT :
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.MAYA M.N.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.01.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING :
CRL.A.No.2352 OF 2006(F)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 7th day of January 2021
The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section
55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1077. He was sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in
default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
2. The prosecution case was that the accused was found in
possession of 35 litres of wash in a black can along with rubber tube
at his residential house on 06.01.2000 at 6.00 p.m. by the Excise
Inspector. Pursuant to completion of investigation and final report
being filed, the case was committed to the Sessions Court.
3. In order to prove the prosecution case, PWs 1 to 6 were
examined and Exts.P1 to P3 were marked. MOs 1 and 2 were also
marked. After analysing the prosecution case and the evidence
adduced, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty and
sentenced him as stated earlier. Aggrieved by the conviction and
sentence, this appeal is preferred.
CRL.A.No.2352 OF 2006(F)
4. Assailing the conviction, the learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the prosecution case, even if admitted in its
entirety, would still not prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. In support of his contention, attention of this Court
was invited to the absence of specimen seal on the forwarding note,
which is produced as Ext.P9 in evidence. Perusal of Ext.P9, which is
marked as 'copy of requisition' shows that it is the forwarding note
that was marked and termed as requisition, which unfortunately does
not bear the sample seal.
5. The absence of seal in a forwarding note sending the
sample for analysis to the chemical analysis laboratory breaks the link
that connect the contraband seized with the sample taken and send
for analysis to the chemical analysis laboratory. In the absence of a
seal on the forwarding note the link breaks and the sanctity of sample
that was sent for analysis becomes doubtful. It has been held in
Balachandran v. State of Kerala [2020 (4) KLT 137] and in
Sajeevan v. State of Kerala [2020 (6) KLT 53] apart from several
other decisions that absence of seal on the forwarding note is fatal to
the prosecution. In the aforesaid circumstances, the prosecution has
failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the
CRL.A.No.2352 OF 2006(F)
accused in SC.No.157/2004 on the files of the Additional Sessions
Court (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court-III, Pathanamthitta shall stand set
aside and the accused is acquitted. The bail bond furnished, if any, by
the accused shall stand cancelled and he shall be set at liberty
forthwith.
The Criminal appeal is allowed as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE
RKM
