Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 10136 Ker

Crl.A.No.1922/2006           1



           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.1922 OF 2006

   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 647/2004 DATED 13-09-2006 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)FAST TRACK COURT-
                      I, PATHANAMTHITTA

 IN CP 127/2003 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RANNI


APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

            RAMACHANDRAN
            AGED 45 YEARS
            S/O.RAMAN, THANNIMOOTTIL VEEDU,
            RAJANPARA, LAHA-PERUNAD.

            BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTOSH KUMAR (PERUNAD)

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

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

            BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S.L. SYLAJA

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.A.No.1922/2006             2



                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25th day of March, 2021

The accused in SC.No.647/2004 on the file of the Court of

the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Adhoc), Fast Track-

I, Pathanamthitta, has filed this appeal, being aggrieved by the

judgment dated 09.08.2006 whereby the appellant was found

guilty of offence under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of

one year and to pay of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) and in

default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for a further period of one year.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.11.2002 at

11.15 pm, the accused was found in possession of 4 litres of

arrack in a can of 5 litre capacity. It is stated that on searching

the place of occurrence, another can of 20 litre capacity

containing 16 litres of arrack was found at a distance of 10

metres from the place of occurrence.

3. On the side of the prosecution PW1 to PW5 were

examined and Exts.P1 to P4 were marked. On the basis of the

evidence on record, the court below found the accused guilty of

offence under Section 8 (2) and imposed the sentence referred

above.

4. Heard Sri S.Santhosh Kumar (Perunad), learned

counsel for the appellant and Smt.S.L.Sylaja, learned Public

Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

5. Even though several grounds have been raised in the

memorandum of appeal, on a perusal of the records of the

case and the judgment, I find that prosecution has failed to

produce, prove and mark the forwarding note along with which

the sample is said to have been forwarded to the Chemical

Examiner. This Court has held in several decisions that in the

absence of proving and marking of the forwarding note, it

cannot be held that the prosecution has proved beyond any

reasonable doubt that the very same sample which was taken

at the spot of occurrence had reached the Chemical Examiner

for analysis in a tamper proof condition. See Unnikrishnan

Nair V. State of Kerala reported in (2020 (3) KHC 455)

and Sadasivan @ Para V. State of Kerala reported in (2020

KHC 478).

6. In the light of the settled legal position and on the

facts of the case, the appellant is entitled to succeed. The

judgment dated 13.09.2006 in SC.No.647/2004 on the file of

the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge,

(Adhoc), Fast Track-I, Pathanamthitta, 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.

The appeal stands allowed.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI, JUDGE

dsn