IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU FRIDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1946 CRL.A NO. 2654 OF 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.57 OF 2009 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, THODUPUZHA APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

LEELA W/O THANKAPPAN,, ALACKAL HOUSE, KOOVAKANDAM KARA, VELLIYAMATTEM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK.

BY ADVS.

SRI.C.M.TOMY SMT.ANJANA VARGHESE SRI.K.J.JOSEMON SRI.MATHEW SKARIA RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

SRI.G.SUDHEER, PP THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.11.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc-II) Thodupuzha, the accused has preferred this Appeal. The appellant was convicted under Sections 8(2) and 55(g) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh.

2. The prosecution case is that on 28.7.2008 at 7.15 p.m, the accused was found in possession of 2 litres of arrack and the utensils for distilling arrack on the premises of her residential building bearing No.VIII/354 of Velliamattom Panchayat in Velliamattom Village in violation of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

3. After completing the investigation, final report was submitted against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 8(2) and 55(g) of the Abkari Act before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, from where it was made over to the Trial Court. On the appearance of the accused, charge was framed against her for the offence punishable under Sections 8(2) and 55(g)of the Abkari Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge, and therefore, she came to be tried by the Trial Court for the aforesaid offence.

4. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 4 and proved Exts.P1 to P8 and MO1 to MO6.

5. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. She pleaded innocence. The Trial Court heard the matter under Section 232 Cr.P.C. and found evidence against the accused and hence she was called upon to enter on her defence and adduce evidence, if any, she may have in support thereof. After hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, the Trial Court convicted the appellant/accused for the aforesaid offence.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant challenges the judgment of conviction and sentence on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish that the contraband substance allegedly seized from the place of occurrence has eventually reached the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant challenges the judgment of conviction on the following grounds:-

(i) The arrest of the accused, as alleged is doubtful.

(ii) The prosecution failed to establish that the contraband allegedly seized eventually reached the Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory.

9. The alleged seizure and arrest were effected on

28.7.2008. Ext.P1 arrest memo contains the number of the crime registered against the accused. The learned counsel disputed the arrest of the accused. The learned counsel submitted that the presence of the Crime Number in the Arrest Memo makes the arrest doubtful. In Santhosh V. State of Kerala (W.P.(C) No.2182 of 2006), considering a similar factual situation this Court observed as under:-

13. The learned counsel for the accused disputed the arrest of the accused. He mainly relied on the presence of the crime number in Ext.P4 arrest memo to contend that the arrest of the accused at the spot is doubtful. Ext.P4 contains the number of the crime (No.152/2002) registered against the accused.

14. The presence of crime number in the arrest memo prepared by the detecting ofÏcer at the place of occ