High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-04-12Criminal Appeal allowed; Appellant acquitted; A...

ANEESH v. STATE OF KERALA

Case / Petition Number:CRL.A NO. 1489 OF 2009

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Babu
Judgment Date: 2024-04-12
Court Decision / Holding: The Criminal Appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act, and the accused is set at liberty. Any interim deposit made shall be returned to the accused as per law.
Final Disposition: Criminal Appeal allowed; Appellant acquitted; Accused set at liberty; Deposits to be disbursed per law.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Aneesh

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Rajit
• Sri. Ranjit Babu

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sri G Sudheer

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal challenges a conviction under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act, arising from a prosecution alleging possession of 2 litres of arrack on 04.06.2005 at Wadakkanchery, which the trial court found established. The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court (Adhoc II, Fast Track Court No. II, Thrissur) after a trial that included evidence from six witnesses and several documentary exhibits, with MO1 and Exts. P1–P11. The appellant challenged the conviction on substantial grounds: notably, the chain of custody and the link between seizure, the sample’s transit to the Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory, and its subsequent analysis were not properly established. The court also highlighted that Ext. P4, the seizure mahazar, lacked the nature/description of the seal on the bottle containing the sample, and crucial officials who handled the sample during transit were not examined. Citing Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala (2020 KHC 5296), the High Court urged that the seal’s nature and specimen must be produced to verify genuineness. The judgment also relies on State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram and Vijay Pandey v. State of U.P to reinforce the necessity of proper chain of custody and the correlative link between seizure and laboratory analysis. Ultimately, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the link, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, with liberty to discharge any deposit as per law.

Provisions of Law Cited

Abkari Act, Section 8(2)Cr.P.C., Section 313Cr.P.C., Section 232

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Seal/matter of sealing needs to be proven (Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala, 2020 KHC 5296)
Non-examination of officials handling evidence weakens the prosecution (State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram, AIR 1980 SC 1314)
Laboratory reports must be corroborated by connection between seized sample and tested material (Vijay Pandey v. State of U.P, AIR 2019 SC 3569)
Link evidence principle: mere lab report is not conclusive; require correlation between seizure, sample, and analysis

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the prosecution failed to prove a vital link: the contraband substance seized at the scene was subjected to chemical analysis only in isolation, without demonstrating an uninterrupted chain of custody and without confirming that the sample delivered to the laboratory retained its identity. Ext. P4 (seizure mahazar) lacks the description of the sealing; key officials who handled the sample during transit were not examined; hence there is a reasonable doubt about the integrity of the sample and its analysis. Drawing on Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala, the appellant urges that the court must scrutinize the seal description and specimen to ensure authenticity, and that the absence of such proof invalidates the Chemical Analysis Ext. P10. The defense argues there is no reliable link tying the accused to the contraband, warranting acquittal on the grounds of doubts about chain of custody and laboratory processing.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contends that the prosecution produced adequate evidence of possession of contraband and that Exts. P1–P11 together with MO1 established the offence. It is argued that even if certain transit witnesses were not examined, the core chain of events remains supported by the seizure memo, lab report, and testimony. The State contends that the trial court rightly convicted after evaluating the available evidence and that any procedural lapses do not necessarily invalidate the overall case. It maintains that the appellate court should not overturn a conviction merely on technical grounds where the core facts are established.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala	(2020 KHC 5296)	Positive	Used to emphasize the need to describe the seal and produce its specimen to verify genuineness of the sample.
State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram	(AIR 1980 SC 1314)	Positive	Supports the principle that non-examination of officials handling the sample weakens the prosecution and affects chain of custody.
Vijay Pandey v. State of U.P.	(AIR 2019 SC 3569)	Positive	Establishes that a lab report alone is not conclusive; there must be a correlation between seizure and testing.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against ANEESH v. STATE OF KERALA and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU`** ``` FRIDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946 CRL.A NO. 1489 OF 2009 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 10.07.2009 IN SC NO.546 OF 2007 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT(ADHOC II), THRISSUR APPELLANT/S: ``` ``` ANEESH CHITTANDA DESOM VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI G SUDHEER ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl Appeal No.1489 of 2009 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ## **K. BABU, J** ------------------------------------------------- **Crl Appeal No.1489 of 2009** ------------------------------------------------Dated this the 12[th] day of April, 2024 ## **JUDGMENT** Aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.07.2009, passed by the Additional Sessions Court, (Adhoc), Fast Track Court No. II, Thrissur in S.C.No. 546/2007, the appellant/accused has preferred this appeal. The appellant was convicted under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of two years and pay a fine of Rs.1 Lakh. 2. The prosecution case is that on 04.6.2005 at 05.30 p.m., the accused was found in possession of 2 litres of arrack at Wadakkanchery in violation of the provisions of the Abkari Act. Crl Appeal No.1489 of 2009 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 3. After completing the investigation, final report was submitted against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The case was committed to the Sessions Court from where it was made over to the trial Court. On the appearance of the accused charge was framed against him for the offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and therefore, he came to be tried by the trial Court for the aforesaid offence. 4. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 6 and proved Exts.P1 to P11 and MO1. 5. After the closure of evidence on behalf of the prosecution, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He pleaded innocence. The trial Court heard the matter under Section 232 Cr.P.C. and found evidence against the accused and hence he was Crl Appeal No.1489 of 2009 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** called upon to enter on his defence and adduce evidence, if any, he may have in support thereof. The trial Court, after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act and convicted him thereunder. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant challenges the judgment of conviction and sentence on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish that the contraband substance seized from the place of occurrence eventually reached the Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory. 8. The learned counsel relied on the following circumstances to substantiate his contentions: Crl Appeal No.1489 of 2009 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** (i)Ext.P4 seizure mahazar does not contain the nature and description of the seal stated to have been affixed on the bottle containing the sample. (ii)The various officials who handled the sample during the course of its transit from the Court to the laboratory were not examined. 9. The alleged seizure was effected on 04.06.2005. Ext.P4 is the seizure mahazar prepared by the detecting officer at the scene of occurrence. Ext.P4 does not contain the specimen of the seal used by the detecting officer. He has also not produced the specimen of the seal before the Court at the time of production of properties before the Court and has not given evidence as to the nature of the seal used. 10. In **Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala (2020 KHC 5296)** , this Court held that the nature of the seal used by the detecting officer shall be mentioned in the seizure Crl Appeal No.1489 of 2009 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** mahazar and the specimen of the seal shall be produced in the Court so as to enable the Court to satisfy the genuineness of the sample produced in the Court. 11. The sample was received in the Court by the Junior Superintendent of the Court, which remained in the custody of the Property Clerk and was delivered in the laboratory by an Excise Guard by name Sri. Dileep.S.A. The Junior Superintendent of the Court, the Property Clerk and the Excise Guard who delivered the sample in the laboratory were not examined by the prosecution to rule out the possibility of the sample being changed or tampered with. Non-examination of those officials who handled the sample during the course of its transit from the Court to the laboratory is fatal to the prosecution as prosecution failed to rule out the possibility of the sample being changed or tampered with. This view is fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in Crl Appeal No.1489 of 2009 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ## **State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram [AIR 1980 SC 1314).** 12. The resultant conclusion is that the prosecution failed to establish that the contraband substance allegedly seized from the place of occurrence was subjected to analysis in the Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory. Therefore, Ext.P10 Certificate of Chemical Analysis has no evidentiary value. 13. In **Vijay Pandey v. State of U.P (AIR 2019 SC 3569)** the Apex Court held that mere production of a laboratory report that the sample tested was the contraband substance cannot be conclusive proof by itself and that the sample seized and that tested have to be corelated. 14. In the instant case, the prosecution was unable to establish the link connecting the accused with the contraband seized and the sample analysed in the Crl Appeal No.1489 of 2009 ..8.. laboratory. The accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt arising from the absence of link evidence as discussed above. 15. The upshot of the above discussion is that the conviction and sentence entered by the Court below overlooking these vital aspects of the matter cannot, therefore, be sustained. In the result, the appellant/accused is acquitted of the offence alleged. He is set at liberty. Any amount deposited by the accused as per the interim orders of the Court shall be disbursed to him as per law. The Criminal Appeal is allowed as above. Sd/- **K.BABU, JUDGE** kkj