Lakshmikutty d/o Bhavani v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1942** ## **CRL.A.No.623 OF 2005** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 263/2002 DATED 17-03-2005 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) FAST TRACK COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA** **APPELLANT/ACCUSED:** **LAKSHMIKUTTY D/O BHAVANI, KAVITHA VILASAM, KOODAL MURI, KOODAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK.** **BY ADV. SRI.R.MANOJ** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.JAYASURYA** **THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.A.No.623/2005 2 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 25th day of June 2020** The above appeal is filed by the accused in Sessions Case No.263 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court-I, Pathanamthitta. The Excise Inspector, Adoor charge sheeted the appellant alleging offence punishable under Section 8(1) & (2) of the Abkari Act. 2. The prosecution case is that the accused was found in possession of 1½ litres of arrack on 6.6.1999 at 8 A.M. by the Assistant Excise Inspector and his party, Adoor Excise Range. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 3. To substantiate the case, prosecution examined PW1 to PW5. Exts.P1 to P8 were marked on the side of the prosecution. 4. After going through the evidence and the documents, the trial court found that the accused Crl.A.No.623/2005 3 committed the offence under Section 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. She was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, this Crl.Appeal is filed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire trial, in this case, is vitiated because the case is detected by an Assistant Excise Inspector who is not authorised as per the Abkari Act. The counsel also submitted that the forwarding note is not marked in this case. According to the counsel, forwarding note is vital in abkari cases. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is oral and documentary evidence to prove the offence in this case. It is also submitted that this Court Crl.A.No.623/2005 4 may not interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court on technical grounds. 8. After hearing both sides, the point for consideration is whether the accused committed the offence under Section 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. 9. Admittedly, the Assistant Excise Inspector detected the offence in this case. He was examined as PW1. PW2 is the Excise Guard who accompanied PW1. PW3 and PW4 are the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution. PW5 is the Excise Inspector who conducted the investigation. 10. The Assistant Excise Inspector is not authorised to conduct search and seizure as per the Abkari Act till 8.5.2009. Admittedly in this case the seizure was on 6.6.1999. In _**Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala [2018 (4) KLT 894]**_ and in _**Subrahmaniyan v. State of Kerala [2010 (2) KLT 470]**_ and in _**Sasidharan v. State of Kerala [2012 (2) KLT 392]**_ this Court considered this point. Crl.A.No.623/2005 5 ## 11. The relevant portion of the judgment in _Bhaskaran_ ’s case (supra) is extracted hereunder : “ _12. Here in this case, PW1 was only an Assistant Excise Inspector. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the arrest of the accused, the seizure of the articles and sampling of the articles done by the Assistant Excise Inspector were without jurisdiction. Since the illegality annexed to the main parts i.e., the arrest, seizure and sampling, that will go to the root of the matter and hence the cognizance taken and the trial conducted based on such a report are vitiated. Though as per SRO No.234/1967, Preventive Officers were invested with the powers to be exercised under Sections 31, 32, 35, 38, 39, 53 and 59, since the preventive officers are officers specifically named as per the aforesaid notification, the arrest of the accused and seizure of the articles and the production of the accused and property before the Magistrate by the Assistant Excise Inspector, who is not a named or notified officer, are without jurisdiction as has been held by this Court in Subrahmaniyan v. State of Kerala (2010(2)KLT 470)._ _13. It has also come out in evidence that the notification-SRO.361/2009 dated 08.05.2009, as per which the Assistant Excise Inspector of the Range were empowered to exercise all the powers and to perform all the duties of the Excise Inspectors subject to the control of the Excise Inspector. So, as per the latest notification of_ Crl.A.No.623/2005 6 _2009, all officers of the Excise Department not below the rank of Assistant Excise Inspector were empowered to perform the acts and duties mentioned in Sections 40 to 53 (both inclusive) of the Act. They were also empowered to exercise the duties under Sections 31, 32, 34, 35, 38, 39 and 53 of the Act and to exercise all the powers conferred and to perform all the duties assigned on Abkari Officers under the sections aforesaid._ _14. In this case, the offence was detected on 16.4.2002 i.e., before the notification S.R.O.361/2009 dated 08.5.2009. So, the above said notification will not rescue the prosecution in this case since the offence was detected on 16.4.2002. So, the only basis on the notification S.R.O.234/1967, the Assistant Excise Inspector was not mentioned as authorised person to detect the offence. Only the offences detected by the Assistant Excise Inspector after 8.5.2009 is to be well within his power. So only the sole ground that the Assistant Excise Inspector was not empowered under the Act as has held in the ruling in Subrahmaniyan's case (supra), the appellant herein is entitled to get acquittal as prayed or. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.”_ ## 12. Similarly in _Sasidharan_ ’s case (supra) also, the same point is considered. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder : _“17. But it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that as per Section 70 of the Act, all_ Crl.A.No.623/2005 7 _notification and orders conferring powers, imposing duties and making appointments under the act may respectively refer to the persons concerned specially by name or in virtue of their office or to classes of officials generally by the official titles. It is argued since as per the notification in S.R.O.No.234/1967 it was specifically mentioned that the acts and duties mentioned in Sections 40 to 53 of the Act are to be performed by the officer not below the rank of Excise Inspector and since PW2 was only an Assistant Excise Inspector, the arrest of the accused, seizure of the articles and sampling of the articles done by him were without jurisdiction. Since the illegality annexed to the main parts i.e., the arrest, seizure and sampling, that will got to the root of the matter and hence cognizance taken and the trial conducted based on such a report are vitiated. Though as per S.R.O.No.234/1967, Preventive Officers were invested with the powers to be exercised under Sections 31, 32, 35, 38, 39, 53 and 59, since the preventive officers are officers specifically named as per the aforesaid notification, the arrest of the accused and seizure of the articles and the production of the accused and property before the Magistrate by the Assistant Excise Inspector who's not a named or notified officer, are without jurisdiction as has been held by this Court in Subrahmaniyan v. State of Kerala 2010(2)KLT 470)._ _18. Smt.Jasmine, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the contention that even thereafter no notification was issued authorising_ Crl.A.No.623/2005 8 _and empowering the Assistant Excise Inspector to perform the duties under the Act cannot be countenanced in view of the subsequent notification S.R.O.No.361/2009 dated 8.5.2009 as per which the Assistant Excise Inspector of the Range were empowered to exercise all the powers and to perform all the duties of the Excise Inspectors subject to the control of the Excise Inspector. It was further made clear that all officers of the Excise Department not below the rank of Assistant Excise Inspector were empowered to perform the acts and duties mentioned in Sections 40 to 53 (both inclusive) of the Act. They were also empowered to exercise the duties under Sections 31, 32, 34, 35, 38, 39 and 53 of the Act and to exercise all the powers conferred and to perform all the duties assigned on Abkari Officers under the sections aforesaid. But that notification cannot come to the rescue of the prosecution in this case since this notification S.R.O.No.361/2009 came into force only with effect from 8.5.2009 whereas the offence in this case was detected on 19.6.2001. The incident in the case on hand took place long prior to the aforesaid notification. Hence, following the decision in Subrahmaniyan's case, it has to be held that PW2, the Assistant Excise Inspector was not empowered under the Act as it stood then, to perform the duties under the aforestated provisions. Therefore, only on this ground, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. But it is made clear that on and after 8.5.2009, the arrest of the accused, seizure of contraband, sampling, sealing_ Crl.A.No.623/2005 9 _and production of the accused and properties before Court, done by the Assistant Excise Inspector, would be well within his powers.”_ 13. In the light of the above authoritative judgments of this Court, the trial in this case is vitiated. 14. Moreover, the forwarding note is also not marked in this case. Forwarding note is vital in abkari cases. 15. In abkari cases, forwarding note is important because the specimen seal used by the detecting officer will find a place in it. It is the fundamental duty of the prosecution to prove all the links starting from seizure of the contraband till it reaches in the hands of the analyst. Forwarding note is one of the links to prove the prosecution case in abkari cases. 16. This Court in several decisions considered the relevancy of the forwarding note. Some of the decisions are _**Gireesh @ Manoj v. State of Kerala (2019(4) KLT**_ _**79), Vijayan @ Pattalam Vijayan and another v. State of Kerala (2018 (2) KHC 814)**_ and _**Prakasan**_ Crl.A.No.623/2005 10 ## _**and another v. State of Kerala (2016 KHC 96)** ._ The relevant portion of the judgment in _Gireesh_ 's case (supra) is extracted hereunder: _“14. There is another lacuna in the prosecution case. The copy of the forwarding note prepared by PW5 for sending the samples for chemical analysis was not marked in evidence. The forwarding note is expected to contain the specimen impression of the seal used for sealing the bottles containing the samples. In the absence of the forwarding note marked in evidence, it cannot be found that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the very same samples taken at the spot of the occurrence had reached the chemical examiner for analysis in a tamper proof condition (See Prakasan v. State of Kerala (2016 KHC 96 : 2016 (1) KLD 311 : 2016 (1) KHC SN 40 : 2016 (1) KLT SN 96) and Gopalan v. State of Kerala (2016 KHC 541 : 2016 (2) KLD 469 : 2016 (3) KLT SN 16)).”_ 17. In the light of the above discussion, I think that the accused is entitled the benefit of doubt. Hence this Crl.Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant as per the judgment dated 17.3.2005 in Sessions Case No.263 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Crl.A.No.623/2005 11 Fast Track Court-I, Pathanamthitta is set aside. The appellant is set at liberty. Bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant is cancelled. **Sd/-** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** # **JUDGE** **csl**