Kerala High Court
Pulikkal Sivan vs State Of Kerala on 25 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1943
CRL.A.No.1924 OF 2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC.NO.97/2005 DATED 14.06.2006 OF THE
COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC-II) KASARAGODE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
PULIKKAL SIVAN
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.NARAYANAN,
PULIKKAL HOUSE,
PRANTHARKAVU, KALLAR VILLAGE.
BY SRI.K.I.SAGEER IBRAHIM
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
RAJAPURAM POLICE STATION
(CRIME NO.59/03)
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY SMT. S.L. SYLAJA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.03.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.No.1924 OF 2006
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of March 2021
The accused in SC.No.97/2005 on the file of the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Kasargode has filed this appeal,
being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.06.2006 whereby the
appellant was found guilty of offence under section 55(a) of the
Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three
months and to pay of fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment of
fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one
month.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.03.2003 at 6.45 am,
the accused was found in possession of 1.750 litres of arrack. Before
the court below, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW4 and Exts.P1
to P6 were marked. On the basis of the evidence on record, the court
below found the appellant guilty of the offence charged against him
and imposed the sentence referred above.
3. Heard Shri.K.I.Sageer Ibrahim, learned counsel on behalf of
the appellant and Smt.Shylaja, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of
the State.
4. It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that the
CRL.A.No.1924 OF 2006
contraband articles which was seized on 09.03.2003 were produced
before the court only on the next day and that there is a delay of one
day, which has not been explained. It is also submitted that the
forwarding note which has been produced as Ext.P5 does not indicate
the date on which the actual dispatch of the sample was made from
the Court.
5. I have perused the records of the case. There is an
endorsement in Ext.P4 to the effect that the 'thondy' articles were
returned for safe custody to the Station House Officer on 10.03.2003,
except the sample. The forwarding note Ext.P5 is seen to have been
prepared on 09.03.2003. The forwarding note also does not indicate
the person with whom the sample is to be sent to the Chemical
Examiner. There is no counter signature of the Magistrate available
on Ext.P5 and it does not indicate the date on which the sample was
actually forwarded to the Chemical Examiner. Ext.P6 which is the
report of the Chemical Examiner shows that the sample was
forwarded along with a reference letter dated 28.04.2003 and that it
was received by the examiner on 29.04.2003. In the above
circumstances, it is not possible to conclude that the prosecution has
succeeded in proving beyond the resolvable doubt, that the sample
which was taken at the scene of occurrence was the very same
sample which was forwarded to the chemical examiner for analysis
CRL.A.No.1924 OF 2006
and that it was the same sample which was examined and the report
filed.
6. In the result, judgment dated 14.06.2006 in SC.No.97/2005
on the file of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I),
Kasargode is set aside. The appellant is acquitted and set at liberty.
Bail bonds if any executed by the appellant or on his behalf are
cancelled. On 05.10.2006, this Court had directed the appellant to
deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- out of the fine amount before the trial
Court. The appellant is entitled to refund of the same, for which he
may make necessary application before the court below.
The appeal stands allowed.
Sd/-
T.R.RAVI, JUDGE
Sn
