Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.53 seconds)
Documents citing Chandran @ Chandrashekaharan vs State-Represented By Public ... on 20 September, 2016

Sasi O.T vs State Of Kerala on 18 September, 2023

9. The next contention raised by the revision petitioner is regarding the delay in filing the final report. It is submitted that occurrence was on 5.11.1999 and the chemical analysis report was received on 22.4.2000, the final report was filed only on 22.6.2021, i.e., almost more than one year from the date of receipt of the chemical analysis report. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submits that no sufficient explanation has been offered for the delay occurred and therefore, the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relies on the Crl.R.P.No.342 of 2006 7 judgment in Chandran @ Chandrashekaharan v. State (2016 (5) KHC 650) of this Court, paragraph 12 of which reads as follows:
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

B.Chandrasekharan vs State Of Kerala on 25 January, 2017

(a) that the inventory was prepared by the Excise Inspector, Kasaragod and submitted to the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Kasaragod. S.R.O. No.671/75 provides that the Assistant Commissioners in charge of Excise Divisions are authorised officers under Sub Section (1) of Section 67B of the Abkari Act for the purpose of Section 53A within their respective jurisdiction. This court in Chandran @ Chandrashekaharan v. State [2016(5) KHC 650] held that when inventory report is prepared by an officer, who is not an authorised officer under the Abkari Act, the said report cannot be acted upon. In this case, PW1 stated that he produced the contraband before the Circle Inspector concerned. However, the Circle Inspector who prepared the inventory was not examined before the court. It is Crl.R.P.216/2012 : 4 : evident from Ext.P8(a) that the inventory was prepared by the Circle Inspector of Excise, Kasaragod Range, who was admittedly not an authorised officer under Section 67B of the Abkari Act. Therefore, he was not an authorised officer competent to prepare the inventory under sub section (2) of section 53A of the Abkari Act.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - B P Kumar - Full Document

P.J. Jose vs The State Of Kerala on 21 February, 2017

S.R.O.No.671/75 provides that the Assistant Commissioners in charge of Excise Divisions are authorised officers under sub section (1) of Section 67B of the Abkari Act for the purpose of Section 67B within their Crl.R.P.370/2013 : 4 : respective jurisdiction. In this case, PW7 was admittedly not an authorised officer under Sub Section (1) of Section 67B of the Abkari Act for the purpose of Section 53A within his jurisdiction. Therefore, he was not an authorised officer competent to prepare the inventory under sub section (2) of section 53A of the Abkari Act. This court in Chandran (supra) held that when the inventory report is prepared by an officer who is not an authorised officer under the Abkari Act, the said report cannot be acted upon. In this case, since Ext.P12 was prepared by an officer not authorised under Section 67B of the Abkari Act, Ext.P12 cannot be acted upon, as it is patently illegal. When Ext.P12 cannot be acted upon, the entire contraband should have been produced before the court. However, in Crl.R.P.370/2013 : 5 : this case, the contraband articles were not produced before the court and instead of that, the prosecution relied on Ext.P12 inventory, which is patently illegal and consequently, the revision petitioner is entitled to be acquitted.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - B P Kumar - Full Document
1