Kerala High Court
K.Dasan vs State Of Kerala on 4 July, 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH
TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/6TH ASHADHA, 1939
CRL.A.No. 1291 of 2005 ( )
---------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 399/2004 OF THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT - I, PALAKKAD DATED 04-07-2005
APPELLANT/ACCUSED.:
---------------------
K.DASAN, S/O.VELUKUTTY, KARIPPALIL VEEDU
AZHIYANNUR, KADAMPAZHIPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT.:
---------------------------
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONGAD POLICE
STATION.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PRIYA SHANAVAZ
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
27-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.Appeal No.1291 OF 2005
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2017
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the conviction and sentence made in S.C.No.399/2004, on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge ( Fast Track I), Palakkad. The conviction is under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. The allegation is that the appellant was found in possession of four litres of arrack.
2. When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted before the court that in this case the allegation was that on 17.02.2004, while conducting petrol duty, the appellant was seen possessing four litres of arrack. Even though a crime was registered and final report was filed, there is nothing to show that at what point of time the contraband was actually transmitted to the court. No property list marked. It is also the submission that copy of the forwarding note also is not containing the name of the guard Crl.Appeal No.1291/2005 2 through whom it was intended to be forwarded.
3. I heard the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. I perused the records. It can be seen that the property list was not marked before the court. On perusal of the records, it can be seen that the property list was available in the back records, but not marked. As per the said records, it is seen that it reached only on 20.02.2004. But surely, an unmarked document cannot be relied upon by this Court. Thus, in this case, there was a delay in reaching the article, even if the unmarked document, is taken into consideration. Surely, an unmarked document, cannot be looked into by this court. As per the dictum laid down by this Court in Raju v. State of Kerala ( 2012 KHC 877), the article should have been forwarded forthwith.
Under such circumstances, this is a case where benefit of doubt can be extended to the appellant. Thus, the appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the court below. The bail bond stands cancelled.
K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH JUDGE sv.