Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 23166 Ker
Judgement Date : 24 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1943
CRL.A NO. 2230 OF 2007
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 168/2003 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
COURT (ADHOC)-III, THALASSERY, KANNUR
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
KALLUKADAMBIL JOSE,
S/O VARGHESE, KANICHAR AMSOM,, PADINJARE VELLOONNI,
THALASSERI TALUK.
BY ADVS.
SRI.H.BADARUDDIN
SRI.C.A.JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS:
1 EXCISE INSPECTOR,
PERAVOOR RANGE, PERAVOOR P.O.,, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR
DISTRICT.
2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI SANAL P RAJ,PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.11.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A NO. 2230 OF 2007 2
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the accused in S.C.No.
168/2003 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, (Adhoc-
III), Thalasseri challenging the judgment dated 16.10.2007
convicting him under Sections 8(1) and 55(a) of the Abkari Act.
2. The prosecution case in short is that on 07.07.1999
at about 4.00 p.m., the accused was found in possession of 5
litres of illicit arrack in a can at Padinjare Vellunni in Kanichar
in contravention of the Abkari Act and Rules.
3. On receipt of summons, the accused appeared at the
court below. After hearing both sides, the court below framed
charge against the accused under Sections 8(1) and 55(a) of
the Abkari Act. The charge was read over and explained to the
accused, who pleaded not guilty.
4. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 and Exhibits
P1 to P7 were marked. MO1 was identified. No defence
evidence was adduced.
5. After trial, the court below found that the accused
has committed offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the
Abkari Act and he was convicted for the said offence. The
accused was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for
a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in
default, to suffer simple Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of
one month as per the impugned judgment. Aggrieved by the
said conviction and sentence, the accused preferred this
appeal.
6. Heard both sides.
7. PW2 is the detecting officer. He prepared Ext.P3
mahazar at the time of the seizure of the contraband articles.
According to him, he drew sample from the contraband article
and it was properly labelled, sealed and packed. A perusal of
Ext.P3 would show that it does not contain the sample seal or
the description of the seal used. This court in K.Bhaskaran Vs.
State of Kerala [2020(5) KLT online 1057] has held that
specimen seal shall be provided in the seizure mahazar and
also in the forwarding note so as to enable the court to satisfy
the genuineness of the sample produced in the court. It was
also observed in the said judgment that the nature of the seal
used shall be mentioned in the seizure mahazar.
8. Ext.P5 is the property list. In Ext.P5 also, the sample
seal or description of the seal was not mentioned. In the
absence of the seal in the mahazar, it cannot be found that the
prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that, the very
same sample taken out of the spot of occurrence had reached
the Chemical Examiner for analysis in a tamper proof
condition. Hence, I am of the view that, the conviction and
sentence passed by the court below cannot be sustained.
In the result, this Crl.Appeal is allowed. The conviction
and sentence passed by the court below vide impugned
judgment are set aside. The appellant is found not guilty of the
offence charged against him and is acquitted. His bail bond is
cancelled.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE
ska
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!