Kerala High Court
Anil S vs State Of Kerala on 22 September, 2025
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
2025:KER:70441
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 31ST BHADRA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 7702 OF 2025
CRIME NO.46/2007 OF KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
IN SC NO.1234 OF 2017 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/ADDITIONAL SUB
COURT, ATTINGAL
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
ANIL S
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O AJAYAN RESIDING AT VILAYIL VEEDU, NEAR KUNNIL TEMPLE,
VAKKOM, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN
- 695304
BY ADVS.
SRI.AKHIL SUSEENDRAN
SMT. AISWARYA V.S.
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY ADV. SRI. M.C. ASHI, SR.PP.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.09.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C. No.7702 of 2025
2025:KER:70441
2
ORDER
Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2025
Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.46 of 2007
registered at the Kadakkavoor Police Station for the
offences under Sections 55(a) and 55(b) of the Abkari
Act, now pending as S.C.No.1234 of 2017 on the files of
the Assistant Sessions Court, Attingal. The crime was
registered on the allegation that, at about 11:00 am on
16.02.2007, while conducting vehicle inspection near
Panayilkadavu bridge, the Police intercepted the
autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-16-B-1662 driven
by the petitioner and found the 1 st accused, who was
travelling in the autorickshaw, to be in possession of 26
bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor of 375 ml each.
2. This Crl.M.C is filed primarily on the ground that
the detecting officer and the investigating officer being
the same person, the investigation and further
2025:KER:70441
proceedings thereon are vitiated. The contention is based
on the decision of the Apex Court in Mohan Lal v. State
of Punjab [2018 (4) KHC 387].
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly
submitted that the dictum laid down in Mohan Lal
(supra) is no longer good law in view of the Constitution
Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Mukesh Singh
v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) [2020 (10) SCC
120]. Therein it is held that, merely because the
informant is the investigator, that, by itself, would not
render the investigation unfair or biased, and the
accused is not entitled to acquittal on that sole ground.
4. Learned Counsel then contended that the other
patent illegalities are sufficient to vitiate the entire
proceedings. It is argued that sample of the seal affixed
by the investigating officer on the contraband does not
find a place in the scene mahazar as well as forwarding
2025:KER:70441
note. It is contended that unless sample of the seal is
affixed on the scene mahazar and forwarding note, there
is no guarantee that the contraband was received by the
analyst in tamper proof form. In this regard reliance is
placed on the decisions of this Court in Kariyadan Venu
v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC 518], Rajan and
Another v. State of Kerala [2021 KHC 191] and
Thankamony Amma v. State of Kerala [2024 KHC
1030]. Finally it is submitted that the 1 st accused is no
more and the only allegation against the petitioner is that
the 1st accused had travelled in his autorickshaw with the
contraband. According to the learned Counsel, in view of
the fatal infirmities pointed out above and the the limited
role attributed to the petitioner, there is no possibility of
the trial ending in conviction. Finally, it is submitted that
the trial of the case is scheduled from 26.09.2025
2025:KER:70441
onwards and the prosecution has cited only four
witnesses.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the
arguments now put forth are matters to be decided
based on the evidence adduced before the trial court.
6. In spite of the strenuous efforts of the learned
Counsel for the petitioner, I am not inclined to invoke the
inherent power and quash the proceedings. Firstly, the
challenge on the premise that the detecting officer and
investigating officer is the same person does not survive
by reason of the decision in Mukesh Singh (supra). The
contention regarding the infirmities in forwarding the
sample has to be decided by the trial court based on the
evidence tendered by the prosecution. Pertinent also to
note that the decisions relied by the petitioner are all
rendered in criminal appeals, after scrutinizing the
evidence tendered before the trial court.
2025:KER:70441
The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is hence closed,
reserving the petitioner's right to raise all contentions
before the trial court. The crime being of the year 2007
and the Sessions Case, of 2017, earnest efforts shall be
taken by the court below to conduct trial and pronounce
judgment in the case within one month of receipt of a
copy of this order.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
NB/22-9
2025:KER:70441
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.
46/2007 OF KADAKKAVUR POLICE STATION, REGISTERED
U/S.55(A) AND (B) OF THE ABKARI ACT, 1077 PENDING
AS SC NO. 1234/2017 IN THE FILES OF THE ASSISTANT
SESSIONS COURT, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST
ACCUSED DATED 25/06/2025
ANNEXURE A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORD OF THE
PETITIONER
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE
