Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)K. Sasidharan vs Kerala State Film Development Corpn on 17 March, 1994
In the light of the two
decisions of this Court reported in Sasidharan V. State of
Kerala (2007(1) KLT 720) and in Ravi V. State of Kerala
(2011(3) KLT 353), which are relevant in this case,
according to me, the appellant is entitled to get a clear
acquittal. In the above two decisions, the learned Single
Judge and the Division Bench of this Court has held that,
"Prosecution has a duty to prove that it was the sample taken
from contraband liquor seized from accused which had reached
the hands of Chemical Examiner in a fool proof condition."
Ravi vs State Of Kerala on 10 July, 2009
In the light of the above discussion and materials
and evidence referred to above, I am of the view that, the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove its allegation
against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The
learned Judge of the trial court has miserably failed to
consider the above aspect and committed mistake in not
extending the benefit of doubt in favour of the appellant.
18
Crl.A.No.17 of 2007
Therefore, I am unable to sustain the findings and
conviction recorded by the trial court. Hence, according to
me, the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt.
Thus, the conviction recorded by the trial court is set aside.
Section 428 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1