Back
2020 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57455
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.ANIL KUMAR, J
ABHILASH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1380 OF 2013 | CRA 276/2011 | SC 721/2009
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.SIJU, SRI.PRATHEESH.P
For the Respondents: SRI.M.S.BREEZ
Proper adherence to legal procedures in evidence collection and certification is crucial to uphold justice in criminal cases.
Headnote:The case concerns a criminal revision petition against a conviction under Section 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. The court analyzed the legality of the inventory prepared under Section 53A and found it lacking in essential elements, leading to unreliable evidence. The conviction was set aside, and the accused was acquitted of the charges. The judgment emphasized the necessity of proper procedure in evidence certification and inventory preparation as critical to ensuring justice.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction under abkari act utilizing evidence collected. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court's observation regarding evidence reliability. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 11) |
| 3. issues with inventory and evidence impact conviction plausibility. (Para 9 , 12) |
| 4. emphasis on correct procedural adherence. (Para 10) |
| 5. resulting acquittal of the accused based on procedural flaws. (Para 13) |
O R D E R
This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 22.03.2013 in Crl. Appeal No. 276 of 2011 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner/accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Abkari Act , 1 of
1077 (hereinafter referred to as, “Act”).
2. The revision petitioner was the accused in SC No. 721 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Kollam and the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 276 of 2011 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Court, Kollam. The offence alleged against the accused is punishable under Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Act.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on
19.11.2007 at about 6 pm, the accused was found carrying about 5 litres of arrack in a plastic can along the Karalimukku-Kadapuzha road near Kochumandakkadu Temple and thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Act.
4. During the trial of the case, PWs 1 to 5 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P10 and MO1 on prosecution side. On closing the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. When the accused was called upon to enter on his defence, no defence evidence was adduced.
5. Heard Sri.Siju Kamalahasan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner; and Sri.M.S.Breez, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
6. PW3 is the Preventive Officer attached to the Excise Range Office, Sasthamcotta. According to him, on 19.11.2007 at about 6 pm, while he was on patrol duty along with PW1, an Excise Guard attached to the Excise Range Office, and when the party reached about 20 meters west to the Kochumandakkadu Temple, the accused was found carrying a plastic can in his right hand. He would say that on seeing the excise party, the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence leaving the plastic can on the spot. According to him, though they followed him, he could not be apprehended. On examination, it was disclosed that the plastic can contained 5 litres of arrack. He would say that sampling and sealing were done in accordance with law.
7. PW1, the Excise Guard attached to the Excise Range Officer, Sasthamcotta, who accompanied PW3 on the date of occurrence, supported the version given by PW3 in full. He also identified the accused before the court.
8. PW5 is the Excise Range Inspector attached to the Excise Range Office, Sasthamcotta, who registered the crime and occurrence in this case. He stated that on 22.06.2008, the accused was arrested.
9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that immediately after seizing the contraband contained in MO1, Ext.P10 inventory certificate was not prepared in accordance with law and therefore, the case of prosecution is unsustainable.
10.As per Section 53A of the Act, the court trying an offence under the Act shall treat the inventory, the photographs of the liquor, intoxicating drug or article and any list of sample drawn under sub-sections (2) and (4) of 53A of the Act and certified by the magistrate, as primary evidence in respect of such offence. Ext.P10 inventory is produced before the court to show that an inventory was
