Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 48049
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
JOHNSON JOHN, J
K.M. Muthu – Appellant
Versus
The State of Kerala – Respondent
CRL.A NO. 630 OF 2014 | SC NO.67 OF 2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A. Jayasankar, Manu Govind, C.V. Manuvilsan, K. Vidya
For the Respondents: Hasnamol N.S.
Procedural non-compliance in evidence handling led to the acquittal of the accused, emphasizing the importance of protecting due process in conviction.
Headnote:(A) Abkari Act - Section 55(g) - Conviction and sentence challenged by accused for manufacturing arrack - Prosecution failed to comply with Section 53A regarding chain of custody of the sample, requiring immediate audit and verification - The court maintained that a breach of procedural requirements warrants the benefit of doubt for the accused. (Paras 6, 12, 22)
(B) Chain of Custody - The prosecution must prove that the sample analyzed was from the contraband seized - Failure to demonstrate a tamper-proof chain renders conviction unsafe, allowing for acquittal due to reasonable doubt. (Paras 17, 18, 22)
Facts of the case:
The accused were convicted for manufacturing arrack after a raid but challenged the trial court’s reliance on improper procedures for sample collection and analysis.
Findings of Court:
The conviction was reversed as the trial court's inadequacy to adhere to statutory requirements precluded the possibility of a lawful conviction.
Issues: The court addressed the primary concern of whether the prosecution established a tamper-proof chain for the samples.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that any infringement of statutory safeguards undermines the prosecution's credibility, thereby necessitating an acquittal.
Result: Appeal allowed; accused acquitted of the charges.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction based on raid for arrack manufacturing. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. discussion on procedural compliance under the abkari act. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. requirement for tamper-proof handling of samples. (Para 8 , 12 , 16 , 18 , 22) |
| 4. legal obligations regarding the production and chain of evidence. (Para 10 , 14 , 21) |
| 5. outcome of the appeal based on breaches of statutory requirements. (Para 15 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT
The appellants are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.C. No. 67 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kalpetta and they are challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on them for the offence under Section 55 (g) of the Abkari Act .
2. The prosecution case is that on 18.12.2008, at about 7.30 a.m., accused Nos. 1 to 4 were found manufacturing arrack in the reserve forest near to Brahmagiri estate in a raid conducted by the Excise Inspector of Mananthavady Excise Range and party.
3. The trial court, after framing charge, examined PWs 1 to 7 and marked Exhibits P1 to P10 and MOs 1 and 2 from the side of the prosecution and no evidence adduced from the side of the defence.
4. After trial and hearing both sides, the trial court found accused Nos. 1 and 2 guilty of the offence under Section 55 (g) of the Abkari Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months each. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 are found not guilty of the offence under (g) of the and they are acquitted.
5. Heard Sri. Sabarinath S., the learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the appellants on record, and Smt. Hasnamol N.S., the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the mandate of Section 53A of the Abkari Act is not complied in this case and the prosecution has failed to establish the procedural requirements for ensuring tamper proof collection of samples and production of the same in the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory in fool proof condition and therefore, the appellants are entitled for the benefit of reasonable doubt.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PW1, Excise Inspector, and PW4, Preventive Officer, regarding the occurrence is reliable and that Exhibit P9, chemical examiner’s report, would show that ethyl alcohol was detected in the sample and hence, there is no reason to interfere with the findings in the impugned judgment.
8. PW1, is the Excise Range Inspector who detected the offence, and PW4 is the Preventive Officer who accompanied PW1 at the time of occurrence, and regarding the occurrence, they deposed in accordance with the prosecution case. The evidence of PW1 is that while on patrol duty and when they reached near Appapara at about 5 a.m., on 18.12.2008, he got information that the first accused Muthu and others are manufacturing arrack in the reserve forest and accordingly, they proceeded to the place of occurrence along with witnesses and they saw accused Nos. 1 to 4 handling utensils for manufacturing arrack. The evidence of PWs 1 and 4 shows that on seeing the excise party, accused Nos. 3 and 4 ran away and they detained accused Nos. 1 and 2 and recovered wash and other utensils from the place of occurrence. PWs 5 and 6 are the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution; but, they turned hospital to the prosecution and deposed that they have not witnessed the alleged occurrence.
9. According to PW1, he took sample of wash in a 500 ml. bottle and sealed the same and destroyed the remaining wash at the place of occurrence. The evidence of PW1 in cross examination shows that he has not obtained the permission of the Magistrate for destroying the remaining wash. PW1 also admitted that he has not prepared any memo before destroying the remaining wash at the place of occurrence. PW1 denied the suggestion of the defence that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were taken to custody from their house and that no contraband
