High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
YHINNAMMA BABY v. STATE OF KERALA - Crl Rev Pet No. 122 of 1999(A)  RD-KL 5507 (15 March 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMCrl Rev Pet No. 122 of 1999(A)
1. YHINNAMMA BABY
1. STATE OF KERALA
For Petitioner :SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
O R D E R
K.R.UDAYABHANU, JCrl.R.P.No.122 of 1999 & Crl.R.C.No.1/99
Dated this the 15th day of March, 2007
ORDERThe revision petitioner is the accused who stands convicted for the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
2. Crl.R.C.1/99 was suo-moto taken by this court as a mandatory imprisonment as provided by the statute was not imposed.
3. The prosecution case is that on 28.8.1995 at 1 p.m., the preventive officer and patrol party of Excise Circle Inspector on search of the house of the accused detected one litre of illicit arrack kept in a plastic container. The contention of the counsel for the revision petitioner is that there is inordinate delay in producing the contraband before the court as well as in further forwarding the sample to the chemical analyst. It is contended that there is no evidence also as to when and who drew the CRRP122/99 Page numbers sample and there is no evidence as to the ownership of the house. The evidence adduced in the matter consisted of the testimony of PW's 1 to 5 of whom PW's 1 to 4 are the witnesses to the detection and recovery. PW1 and 2 are the preventive officer and excise guard who have testified as to the incident and PW5 is the excise officer who submitted the charge sheet. It is seen that on verification of the exhibits produced that the contraband was produced before the court only on 21.11.1995 i.e., about one month after the detection and the sample reached the analyst on 15.6.1996 i.e., after about 10 months after the date of detection. Ext.P2 seizure mahazar is silent about the sampling. In the above mahazar, it is not mentioned anything with respect to the identity of the house or as to the ownership of the house. No evidence has been adduced as to whether the accused owned the particular house. There is no house number or anything mentioned in the seizure mahazar. In view of the above circumstances, it cannot be held that the prosecution has proved the indictment beyond reasonable doubt. In the circumstance, the conviction and sentence imposed by the court CRRP122/99 Page numbers below is set aside.
4. In the circumstances, the reference Crl.R.C.1/99 is closed. The accused stands acquitted. The criminal revision petition is disposed of as above. K.R.UDAYABHANU,
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.