[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Satheesan vs State Of Kerala on 12 February, 2026
2026:KER:12888
Crl.R.P.No.302/2018
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 23RD MAGHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 302 OF 2018
CRIME NO.81/2008 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KOLLAM
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.08.2017 IN CRL.A NO.173 OF
2016 OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.01.2014 IN SC NO.390 OF
2010 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SATHEESAN,
AGED 54 YEARS,
S/O. PEETHAMBARAN,
ADISSERIL HOUSE,
ADINADU NORTH MURI,
KULASEKHARAPURAM VILLAGE,
KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SMT.HEMALATHA
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE :
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
SRI SHAN V. SHINE, AMICUS CURIAE
SRI SUDHEER.G, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:12888
Crl.R.P.No.302/2018
-:2:-
ORDER
The concurrent findings of the Assistant Sessions Court,
Karunagappally, and the Additional Sessions Court-III, Kollam, in
S.C.No.390/2010 and Crl.A.No.173/2016, respectively, convicting and
sentencing the petitioner for the commission of offence under Sections
8(1) & 8(2) of the Abkari Act, are under challenge in this revision.
2. The prosecution case is that on 22.05.2008, at about
07:30 a.m., the petitioner was found to have been in possession of two
litres of arrack in a plastic bottle of two litres capacity, by the side of a
public road. The Excise Inspector of Excise Circle Office, Karunagappally,
is said to have detected the offence and arrested the petitioner on the
spot with the contraband item. Sample is also said to have been
collected then and there. On report of the matter to the Excise Range
Office, Karunagappally, the investigation was carried out by the Excise
Inspector of Excise Range Office, Karunagappally, who filed the final
report before the Jurisdictional Magistrate.
3. In the trial before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, five
witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW5 on the part of the prosecution,
and eight documents were brought on record as Exts P1 to P8. After
2026:KER:12888
analysing the above evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge
found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Sections 8(1) & 8(2) of
the Abkari Act and convicted him thereunder. He was sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for three months, and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,00,000/- with a default clause of simple imprisonment for 30 days.
Though the petitioner challenged the above verdict of the Trial Court in
appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kollam, who
considered the appeal, refused to interfere with the findings of the Trial
Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the conviction
and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the above
concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the petitioner is here before this
Court with this revision.
4. As there was consecutive non-representation on the part of
the petitioner, despite notice having been issued from the Registry
intimating the posting date of the case, Adv. Sri. Shan V. Shine was
appointed as Amicus Curiae to represent the revision petitioner.
5. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae representing the revision
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of
Kerala.
2026:KER:12888
6. As already stated above, the prosecution case relates to the
seizure of a plastic bottle containing two litres of arrack from the
possession of the petitioner on 22.05.2008 by the Excise Inspector of
Excise Range Circle, Karunagappally and his team, who were on patrol
duty. Among the five witnesses examined from the part of the
prosecution, PW2, the independent witness turned hostile, and
discredited the prosecution story. PW1 is the Excise Inspector, who is
said to have detected the offence, arrested the accused and seized the
contraband item from the accused. It is PW1 who is said to have
collected samples from the contraband item at the time of detection of
the offence. Though it is stated in Ext P3 mahazar prepared by PW1 that
the sample bottle was secured with the seal impression shown in that
mahazar, the procedures adopted by the above Officer while sealing the
bottle are not narrated in the aforesaid mahazar. The above sample
bottle is said to have been produced before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Karunagappally, on the same day when the offence
was detected. However, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the
sample bottle was received at the office of the Judicial First Class
2026:KER:12888
Magistrate Court, Karunagappally, after verifying and getting satisfied
about the condition of the seal as intact. The staff of the above Court,
who is said to have received the sample bottle, has not been examined
as a witness from the part of the prosecution. Thus, it is not possible to
conclude on the basis of the available evidence that the sample bottle
was transmitted to the Court and received there in a tamper-proof
condition. Likewise, there is absence of evidence to show that the
sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory, in a
tamper-proof condition from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Karunagappally. The above aspect also could have been brought in
evidence by the examination of the staff concerned, who despatched the
sample bottle to the Chemical Lab. It is not possible to discern from
Ext P6 forwarding note as to whether the sample bottle was packed
again at the office of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court and secured
with the seal of that Court. In the above circumstances, it has to be
stated that the essential requirement of sending the sample to the
Chemical Examiner's Laboratory in a tamper-proof condition could not be
established by the prosecution.
2026:KER:12888
7. The remaining arrack contained in the plastic bottle said to
have been seized from the petitioner is said to have been disposed of
under the provisions contained in Section 53A of the Abkari Act. Ext P8
is the inventory report relied on by the prosecution to establish the
disposal of the remaining contraband item. Though Ext P8 is attached
with a certificate of inventory of the Magistrate concerned, there is
absolutely no indication in the above said certificate that the learned
Magistrate had verified and cross checked the seal impression in the
bottle with any specimen seal provided by the investigating agency. In
the absence of indications in the above regard, Ext P8 inventory report
and the records appended to it are of no help for the prosecution in
establishing the charge levelled against the petitioner. As a conclusion to
the above discussion, I find that the prosecution has failed to establish
the allegation that the petitioner was found to have been in possession
of two litres of arrack on 22.05.2008 at the time of patrol duty of PW1.
Since the courts below ignored the above aspect which is of vital
importance in the appreciation of evidence, it is well within the ambit of
power of this Court to interfere with the aforesaid findings in revision.
2026:KER:12888
Needless to say, the concurrent verdicts of the courts below are liable to
be set aside.
In the result, the revision petition stands allowed. The judgments
rendered by the Assistant Sessions Court, Karunagappally, and Additional
Sessions Court, Kollam, in S.C.No.390/2010 & Crl.A.No.173/2016,
respectively, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission
of offence under Sections 8(1) & 8(2) of the Abkari Act, are hereby set
aside. The petitioner/accused is found not guilty of the aforesaid offence
and he is acquitted thereunder. The bail bond executed by the
petitioner/accused stands canceled and he is set at liberty.
This Court places on record its appreciation for the assistance
rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae Adv. Sri. Shan V. Shine in
addressing the various legal aspects on this matter.
(Sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
DST/12.02.26
