Kerala High Court
Unknown vs By Adv.Sri.C.C.Thomas (Sr.) on 9 March, 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 23RD MAGHA, 1939
CRL.A.No. 486 of 2007
---------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 399/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
(ADHOC-III),NORTH PARAVUR DATED 09-03-2007
APPELLANT/ACCUSED
-----------------
MANI, S/O RAMAN, CHITTURAN VEEDU,
EZHATTUMUGHAM KARA, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE,, ALUVA TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV.SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.)
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
------------------------
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, ANGAMALY,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADV.SRI.P.CHANDRASENAN
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-02-2018,THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rk
K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, J.
---------------------------------
Crl.Appl.No. 486 OF 2007
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2018
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence in S.C.No.399 of 2006, on the files of Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc-III, North Paravur. The conviction was under Section 8(1) and (2) of Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) in default, rigorous imprisonment for three more months.
2. When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted before this Court that, the allegation was that the appellant was found in possession of 10 litres of illicit arrack on 29.06.2004 at 6.30 PM, at a place namely Kalady plantation road. The prosecution altogether examined five witnesses and Crl.Appl.No. 486 OF 2007 2 Exts.P1 to P8 marked. MO1 also identified.
3. It is also the submission of the learned Counsel that, in this case, a mere perusal of the appendix will show that the forwarding note was not marked. The submission of the learned Counsel is that, when the forwarding note is not therein, the nexus in between the sample and the contraband was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard, the Counsel also highlighted a decision of this Court in Krishnan H. v. State reported in 2015 (1) KHC
822.
4. I heard the learned Public Prosecutor. The prosecutor submitted before this Court that the contraband was immediately produced before the Court, ie, on the very next day as evident from Ext.P6, the property list.
5. After hearing the learned Prosecutor and learned Counsel for the appellant, I perused the records. It can be seen that the forwarding note was not marked. An unmarked document cannot be looked into. Thus, considering the Crl.Appl.No. 486 OF 2007 3 dictum laid down by this Court in Krishnan v. State (supra), it can be seen that the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt.
Hence, appeal allowed, conviction set aside and bail bond stand cancelled.
Sd/-
K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE rk/12.02.2018