[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
K.K.Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 6 February, 2026
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.213 of 2015 1
2026:KER:9956
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 17TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 213 OF 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.01.2015 IN CRL.A NO.340 OF
2013 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I, KOTTAYAM, ARISING OUT OF THE
JUDGMENT DATED 10.09.2013 IN C.C.NO.355 OF 2009 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOTTAYAM
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
K.K.MATHEW
S/O KORAH, KARIMBANAKKUZIYIL HOUSE,
AREEPARAMBU, MANARCADU, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
SRI.V.VINAY
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031
(CR. NO.2/20088 OF KOTTAYAM EXCISE RANGE,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT).
BY ADV
SRI. SANAL P. RAJ - PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.01.2026, THE COURT ON 06.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.213 of 2015 2
2026:KER:9956
ORDER
Muralee Krishna S., J.
This revision petition is filed under Section 397 R/W Section
401 of Cr.P.C, by the accused in C.C.No.355 of 2009, on the file
of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kottayam. By the judgment
dated 10.09.2013 passed by the learned Magistrate in that
Calender Case, the petitioner was convicted for the offence under
Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (the 'NDPS Act' for short), and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Crl.A.No.340 of
2013 filed by the petitioner before the Sessions Division,
Kottayam, was ended in dismissal as per the judgment dated
07.01.2015 of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kottayam. Hence,
the petitioner is before this Court with this revision petition.
2. The prosecution case is that, on 12.06.2008, at about
10.00 p.m., the petitioner-accused was found transporting 520
grams of Ganja in an autorickshaw bearing Registration No. KL-
5A-1704 through the Kooropada-Oravackel road with an intention
to sell the same at Ariparambu. The offence was detected by the
2026:KER:9956
Excise Circle Inspector, Kottayam, in front of a waiting shed near
Mahadevar Temple at Ariparambu. According to the prosecution,
on intercepting the autorickshaw and searching the vehicle, the
Circle Inspector and party found the aforementioned contraband
article from the dashboard of the vehicle and seized the same.
3. During trial, in order to prove the guilt of the accused,
the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 11 and marked Exts.P1 to P9
documents and also identified MOs 1 to 3 material objects. No
defence evidence was adduced from the side of the accused. After
hearing and on appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial
court found the petitioner-accused guilty of the aforesaid offence
and sentenced him as mentioned above, which was confirmed in
the appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused
and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner-accused would
argue that during evidence, no forwarding note was marked from
the side of the prosecution before the trial court. The laches on
the part of the prosecution in marking the forwarding note by
tendering it in evidence or proving tamper-free submission of the
2026:KER:9956
sample to the chemical examination laboratory is fatal, and
therefore, the petitioner-accused is entitled to the benefit of
reasonable doubt.
6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would
submit that only for the reason that the forwarding note was not
tendered in evidence, the other convincing evidence adduced from
the side of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside, especially,
when the trial court as well as the appellate court arrived at a
finding against the petitioner-accused after analysing the evidence
on record.
7. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgments
of the trial court as well as the appellate court and appreciated the
rival submissions made at the Bar. It is trite that this Court, being
a revisional court, need not reappreciate the evidence, which was
already appreciated by the trial court as well as the appellate
court. However, if there are glaring laches on the part of the
prosecution which materially affect the prosecution case, a
revisional court is entitled to appreciate the said aspect.
8. In Ali v. State of Kerala [2001 (2) KLT 389], while
considering an offence under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, a
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.213 of 2015 5
2026:KER:9956
learned Single Judge of this Court held that when a doubt arises
with regard to the authenticity of the sample that reached the
laboratory; i.e., whether it was the very same article allegedly
seized from the accused that ultimately reached the Forensic
Science Laboratory, the same has to be appreciated depending
upon the gravity of the offence and proportionate nature of the
evidence to be insisted.
9. In Ramachandran v. State of Kerala [2021 (1) KLT
793], this Court held that when the forwarding note/requisition
sending the sample was not produced, the prosecution could not
establish the tamper proof dispatch of the sample to the
laboratory, as there was no satisfactory link evidence to show that
it was the same sample that was drawn from the contraband
seized, which eventually reached the chemical examination
laboratory.
10. In Jalaludeen v. State of Kerala [2024 (6) KHC
290], in the case of an offence under Section 8 (c) r/w Section 21
(c) of the NDPS Act, while considering a situation of non
production of copy of forwarding note, this Court held that when
forwarding note/requisition for sending the sample was not
2026:KER:9956
produced, prosecution cannot establish the tamper proof dispatch
of sample to the laboratory, as there was no satisfactory link
evidence to show that it was the same sample that was drawn
from the contraband seized, which eventually reached the
chemical examination laboratory.
11. In the instant case, admittedly, the forwarding note, if
any, prepared by the Investigating officer to send the samples
which he had produced before the Court as per Ext.P2 property
list, is not tendered in evidence. In fact, no evidence at all has
been given about the forwarding of the sample to the laboratory
or its tamper-proof reception therein. Therefore, it cannot be said
conclusively that the samples which PW3 deposed as drawn from
the seized contraband article reached the chemical examination
laboratory in a tamper-proof condition. In such circumstances, the
petitioner is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. The
impugned judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate
court are therefore liable to be set aside, and the petitioner is to
be acquitted of the offence charged against him.
In the result, this revision petition is allowed by setting aside
the impugned judgment dated 10.09.2013 in C.C.No.355 of 2009
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.213 of 2015 7
2026:KER:9956
of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kottayam, and the
judgment dated 07.01.2015 in Cr.l Appeal No.340 of 2013 of the
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kottayam, and the petitioner-accused
is not found guilty of the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of
NDPS Act and he is acquitted of that charge. The bail bond of the
petitioner-accused is cancelled, and he is set at liberty.
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S.
JUDGE
MSA
