Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 30782
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Jobin Sebastian, J
Baiju – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 934 OF 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R.Bindu, Prasanth M.P
For the Respondents: U. Jayakrishnan
In criminal trials, specifically under the Abkari Act, an unexplained and substantial delay in producing seized samples for chemical analysis, coupled with the failure to examine the custodial official, creates a reasonable doubt regarding the integrity of the sample, necessitating the acquittal of the accused.
Headnote:The proceedings were initiated against the accused under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act for the alleged possession and transportation of illicit liquor. Both the trial court and the appellate court found the accused guilty and imposed imprisonment and a fine. The primary findings of the court focused on the integrity of the sample, particularly the delay in its production before the Chemical Examiner. The core issue before the court was whether the unexplained delay in producing the sample for chemical analysis vitiated the prosecution case. The ratio decidendi established that in offences under the Abkari Act, it is imperative for the prosecution to prove that the sample remained in safe custody and was untampered from the time of seizure until it reached the laboratory. The failure to offer any explanation for a significant delay, coupled with the failure to examine the custodial officer, raises a fatal doubt regarding the identity and authenticity of the sample. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed, the conviction and sentence are set aside, and the accused is acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of trial court conviction and appellate confirmation for abkari act violation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. contentions of parties regarding innocence and procedural compliance. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. scope of the high court's revisional jurisdiction in criminal matters. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. impact of unexplained delay in sample production on prosecution evidence. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act by the Assistant Sessions Court, Vatakara as per the judgment dated 28.11.2012 in S.C No.151/2010, which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Court-II, Kozhikode, as per judgment dated 18.01.2014 in Crl. Appeal No. 759/2012. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in the said case.
2. The prosecution case is that on 13.09.2005 at about 08:30 PM, while the Excise Inspector and his party were conducting patrol duty, the accused was found in possession of and transporting 18 bottles, each containing 189 ml of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section
55(a) of the Abkari Act.
3. During trial, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW6 were examined and Exts.P1 to P9. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, during which he denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out against him in evidence. As it was not a fit case to acquit the accused under Section 232 of Cr.P.C, he was directed to enter on his defence and to adduce any evidence that he may have in support thereof. However, from the side of the accused, no evidence whatsoever was adduced.
4. Finally, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and convicted him. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- for the offence for which he was found guilty. In default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
5. The accused challenged the conviction by filing Criminal Appeal No. 759/2012. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kozhikode, who heard the appeal, confirmed the finding and sentence passed by the trial court.
6. Heard Sri. M.P. Prasanth, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, and Sri. U. Jayakrishnan, the learned Public Prosecutor, and also perused the records.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the accused is innocent of the allegations levelled against him and that both the trial court and the appellate court committed grave illegality and irregularity in the appreciation of the facts and evidence adduced in the case. According to the learned counsel, the accused has no connection whatsoever with the liquor seizure in the case, and he was implicated in this case on the basis of some surmises and conjectures. On the aforesaid grounds, it was urged that the revision petitioner is entitled to be acquitted.
8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that all the procedural formalities to avoid allegations of manipulation and tampering were scrupulously complied with in this case while seizing, sampling and sealing of the liquor and hence the impugned judgment requires no interference.
9. Before delving into a detailed discussion regarding the scope of interference in the impugned judgment, it is worthwhile to note that the scope of interference in a revision petition is too less. By a series of judicial pronouncements, it is well settled that a court exercising revisional jurisdiction will interfere with the imp
