Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12156
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
MURALEE KRISHNA S., J
A.RAVI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet 2256/2014
SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE, SRI.ARUN AJAY SHANKAR
The absence of a specimen seal on evidence and unexplained delays in investigation are fatal to the prosecution's case, warranting acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Abkari Act - Section 8(2) - Conviction and sentencing for possession of contraband liquor - Initial conviction for two years modified to one year by the appellate court; revision petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. - Prosecution failed to prove the chain of evidence due to lack of specimen seal on property list and unexplained delay in investigation. (Paras 1-14)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 397 and 401 - Revision jurisdiction - Patent illegality in judgment allows for interference by higher court. (Paras 12-14)
Facts of the case:
The accused was arrested for possessing arrack during a routine patrol by the Excise Enforcement team. The trial court convicted him, which was partially upheld by the appellate court.
Findings of Court:
The prosecution's case was undermined by the absence of a specimen seal in the property list and significant delays in the investigation, leading to a lack of evidence.
Issues: Whether the registration of the crime was valid and the implications of the delay in the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of proper procedural compliance in criminal investigations, particularly regarding the handling of evidence and the timely completion of investigations.
Result: Revision petition allowed; conviction set aside and accused acquitted.
ORDER
By the judgment dated 25.11.2013 in S.C.No.369 of 2009 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Hosdurg, the Revision Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Six months for the offence under Section 8 (2) of the Abkari Act .
2. The appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed in part by confirming the conviction, but modifying the substantive sentence as rigorous imprisonment for one year, as per the judgment dated 10.10.2014 of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kasaragod in Crl.Appeal No.189 of 2013. The fine and default sentence were maintained by the Appellate Court. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is now before this Court with the revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short). For convenience, the parties are referred to in this order in their status as they were before the trial court, unless otherwise stated.
3. The prosecution case is that on 15.12.2007 at about 6.30 a.m., while PW1, the preventive officer and party, attached to Excise Enforcement and Anti-Narcotic Special Squad, Kasaragod, were conducting routine patrolling, they found the accused by the side of the road leading to the house of one Kumaran bearing Door No.XIII/239, by holding a 5-litre Can. On search, the exercise party found arrack in the Can. The accused was arrested, and the contraband article was seized from the place of occurrence. After complying with the legal formalities, such as drawing of samples, etc., the accused was brought to the Excise Range Office. The crime was registered by PW5, another preventive officer, who was holding the charge of the Excise Inspector. The accused was produced before the jurisdictional court and remanded in judicial custody. The remaining property was produced before the authorised officer for pre-trial disposal. On completion of the investigation, PW6 the Excise Inspector of the Range concerned laid the final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg.
4. On receipt of the final report, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the Sessions Division under Section 209 of Cr. P.C., after supplying the copies of relevant prosecution records to the accused as provided under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. On receipt of the records, the learned Sessions Judge made over the case to the Assistant Sessions Court, Hosdurg for trial and disposal.
5. From the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 6 were examined, and Exts.P1 to P12 documents were marked. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and he denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in the prosecution evidence. Having found the case as unfit for acquittal under Section 232 of Cr.P.C, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge posted the case for defence evidence. DW1 was examined from the side of the accused. After hearing both sides, the accused was convicted and sentenced by the trial court as said above.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused argued that the crime was registered by PW5 the preventive officer who was holding the charge of the Excise Inspector, and hence the registration of the crime is bad, being not done by an Abkari officer. The learned counsel further argued that there is huge delay in the investigation, which is fatal to the prosecution.
8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses convincingly prove the guilt of the accused and hence no interference is warranted to the impugned judgment of the appellate court.
9. The registration of the crime in this case is done by PW5, a preventive officer. But as evident from Ext.P4 crime and occurrence report, he was ho
