Puthenpurakkal Ravi v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: B. Kemal Pasha
Judgment Date: 2013-08-26
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed; the conviction and the sentence passed by the trial court are set aside. The bail bonds of the appellant are cancelled and he is to be released forthwith. Any amount paid toward the fine shall be refunded to the appellant.
Final Disposition: Conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted and released; refund of any paid fine; lower court’s handling of evidence noted as defective.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Puthenpurakkal Ravi

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Sheji P. Abraham
• Sri P.P. Ramachandran

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Sheeba M.T.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal appeal (CRL.A. No. 14 of 2003) from the judgment in S.C. No. 190/1998 of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Thalassery. The appellant, Puthenpurakkal Ravi, was convicted under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act for possession of four bottles (750 ml each) of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), totaling about three litres, found at Nelloonni, Pazhassi Amsom, on 19 October 1997. The prosecution led evidence through PW1–PW5, with the contraband (Exhibit P1), the First Information Report (Exhibit P2), and a chemical analysis certificate (Exhibit P4) among other material. The defense argued that possession of up to about 4.5 litres could be lawful and questioned the link between the chemical analysis (Exhibit P4) and the seized samples, as well as the absence of a forwarding note or list of the property. The trial court found guilt and sentenced the appellant to one year’s imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. The appellant appealed, contending serious infirmities in the prosecution case and misinterpretation of Exhibit P3 as a forwarding note. The High Court, after analysing the proceedings and evidentiary gaps, allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence, ordering the appellant’s release and refund of any fine paid. The court criticized the prosecution for its reckless handling of the case under the Abkari Act and noted the lower court’s misclassification of Exhibit P3 as a forwarding note before concluding.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant’s counsel argued that possession of four bottles (3 litres) of IMFL during the period could be legally permissible for personal use; there is nothing to prove he engaged in selling the liquor or that the bottles bore declarations indicating sales in Pondicherry or another State. There is no satisfactory link between Exhibit P4 (chemical analysis) and the samples seized; Exhibit P3 was misconstrued by the lower court as a forwarding note, and there is no forwarding note or property list marking the samples or requisition. The evidence is thus not sufficient to prove an offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, and the prosecution’s approach reveals reckless conduct, as illustrated by Ravi v. State of Kerala (2011(3) KLT 353).

Contentions of Respondents

The State contended that the seized contraband and the chemical analysis supported the conviction under the Abkari Act; the evidence on record established possession of illicit liquor and the chain of custody was purportedly maintained; the prosecution’s case was that the appellant possessed IMFL in excess of permissible quantities and intended for sale outside the State, consistent with the charge.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ravi v. State of Kerala	2011(3)KLT 353	Mentioned Only	Cited by counsel to illustrate a point about the handling of remand papers and forwarding notes; used as a cautionary reference rather than as governing authority for the present judgment.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/4TH BHADRA, 1935 CRL.A.No. 14 of 2003 ( ) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 190/1998 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), THALASSERY APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------- PUTHENPURAKKAL RAVI, S/O. KARUNAKARAN NAIR, 45 YEARS, PAYYAVOOR AMSOM, KANHIRAKOLLY DESOM, TALIPARAMBU TALUK. BY ADVS.SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SHEEBA M.T. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DSV/- B. KEMAL PASHA, J -----------------------------------Crl.A.No. 14 of 2003 ----------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] day of August, 2013 ## J U D G M E N T The accused in S.C.No.190 of 1998 of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Thalassery, who stands convicted under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of `.1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one more year, has come up in appeal. 2. The prosecution case is that on 19.10.1997 at 5.30 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of 4 bottles each containing 750 ml of Indian Made Foreign Liquor at Nelloonni in Pazhasi Amsom, in contravention of the Provisions of the Abkari Act. 3. PW4 Sub Inspector of Police, Mattannur, who detected the offence, placed the appellant under arrest and seized the contraband through Exhibit P1 seizure Crl.A.No. 14 of 2003 2 mahazar. Samples were drawn. On reaching the police station with the appellant, contraband, samples and the records, he registered the crime through Exhibit P2 First Information Report. He produced the appellant before court through a remand application. The material objects, contraband and the samples were produced before court. On obtaining Exhibit P4 certificate of chemical analysis, charge was laid. 4. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P4 were marked . MO1 series and MO2 were identified. No defence evidence was adduced. The court below found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him as aforesaid. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that at the time of the Crl.A.No. 14 of 2003 3 alleged incident, a person could legally possess 4.5 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and therefore, there was nothing in this case to see that the appellant had committed any offence at all even if it is shown that he was in possession of 3 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor as is alleged against him. It has been further argued that there is nothing to show that any of the said 4 bottles contained any label declaration to the effect that the said Indian Made Foreign Liquor was meant for sales in Pondicherry only. There is no allegation that the appellant was engaged in selling Indian Made Foreign Liquor at a public place. It is also argued that there is absolutely nothing to show that Exhibit P4 certificate of chemical analysis is in respect of the sample allegedly drawn from any contraband that was seized from the possession of the appellant. 6. According to PW4, he found the appellant in possession of 3 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor Crl.A.No. 14 of 2003 4 contained in 4 bottles each containing 750 ml. The appellant was placed under arrest and samples were drawn from the contraband. The contraband was seized through Exhibit P1 mahazar. Either the versions of PW1 or the contents of Exhibit P1 mahazar do not show that the said bottles contained any label declaration to the effect that the same were meant for sales in Pondicherry only or any State other than the State of Kerala. If as a matter of fact, the said quantity of Indian Made Foreign Liquor were meant for sales in the State of Kerala, at the period in question, the appellant could validly possess the same, as the same did not exceed the quantity which he could validly possess. Further, even in the chief examination of PW4 or in the contents of Exhibit P1, there is absolutely nothing to show that the liquor was brought from Mahei as is alleged in Exhibit P2 First Information Report. 7. Apart from all the above, there is serious Crl.A.No. 14 of 2003 5 infirmity in the prosecution case as there is no evidence at all to prove that Exhibit P4 certificate of chemical analysis is in respect of any samples drawn from the contraband allegedly seized from the possession of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has invited my attention to a decision of a Devision Bench of this court in Ravi v. State of Kerala [2011(3)KLT 353]. It seems that the court below has considered Exhibit P3, mistakenly as a forwarding note. On perusal of Exhibit P3, it can be seen that the same was a remand application and not a forwarding note or a list of property. The property list has not been marked. Either the requisition or the forwarding note has also not been marked. There is absolutely nothing to show as to when and as to who had produced the contraband or samples before court. In the absence of any forwarding note or property list or requisition, it can not be said that Exhibit P4 certificate of chemical analysis is one in respect of Crl.A.No. 14 of 2003 6 the samples allegedly drawn from the contraband allegedly seized from the possession of the appellant. This case is a perfect illustration to show as to how the prosecution was conducted in a reckless manner in a serious offence under the Abkari Act. Even the court below has considered the remand application as a forwarding note. The conviction entered by the court below is bad in law and is only to be set aside. In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction and the sentence passed by the court below is set aside. The bail bonds of the appellant stands cancelled and he is set at liberty forthwith. The amount, if any, deposited towards fine, shall be refunded to the appellant. Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE. // True Copy // P.A. To Judge DSV/- Crl.A.No. 14 of 2003 7