Rameshan vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 9036 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

    THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                         CRL.A.No.1776 OF 2007

  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC.NO.309/2005 DATED 06-08-2007 OF THE
    COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC)- I, THALASSERY


APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

             RAMESHAN,
             S/O. CHINNAN,
             AGED 31 YEARS,
             COOLIE, PANDARAVALAPPIL VEETTIL,
             ELAYAVOOR AMSOM, KIZHUTHALLI DESOM,
             KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DIST.

             BY ADVS.
             SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA
             SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA)

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

             STATE
             REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

             BY SMT SYLAJA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR



     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.03.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.A.No.1776 OF 2007

                                  2

                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 18th day of March 2021

The accused in SC.No.309/2005 on the file of the Court of

Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc -I, Thalassery has filed this appeal

being aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.08.2007 whereby he has

been found guilty of offence under Section 58 of the Abkari Act and

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three months and to pay of

fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple

imprisonment for a further period of 15 days.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.05.2002 at 8.00 p.m,

the accused was found transporting 6 bottles of 180 ml each Indian

Made Foreign Liquor salable in Pondicherry only along the National

Highway at Thazhechovva. Before the court below, PW1 to PW6 were

examined and Exts P1 to P7 were marked. MO1 and MO2 were

identified. The court below on the basis of the evidence on record,

found the accused guilty of the charges levelled against him and

imposed the sentence referred above.

3. Even though several grounds have been taken in the appeal, I

find that the appellant is entitled to succeed for the sole reason that

the forwarding note produced in the case does not bear the

impression of the specimen seal used for sealing the sample which

had been forwarded to the Chemical Examiner for examination. This CRL.A.No.1776 OF 2007

Court has held in several decisions that the failure to put the

impression of the specimen seal on the forwarding note is sufficient

for the acquittal of the accused, since it cannot be held that the

prosecution has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the sample

that was collected at the scene of occurrence was the very same

sample forwarded to the Chemical Examiner for examination in a

tamper proof condition. [See. Ravi v. State of Kerala [2018 (5)

KHC 352] ; Balachandran v. State of Kerala [2020 (3) KHC

697]; Smithesh v. State of Kerala [2019 (2) KLT 974].

In the said circumstances, the appellant is entitled to succeed in

the appeal. The judgment dated 06.08.2007 in SC.No.309/2005 on the

file of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc -I, Thalassery is

set aside. The accused 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

Sn