Suresh v. Circle Inspector of Police, Varkala & State of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/6TH BHADRA, 1936 CRL.A.No.964 of 2005 (F) ----------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 660/2002 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT FAST TRACK (ADHOC) No.II, TRIVANDRUM. --------- APPELLANT/2ND ACCUSED:: -------------------------------- SURESH, S/O. APPU, DEVAKI NIVAS, PANDAKASALA, SARKARA CHIRAYINKEEZH. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:: ---------------------------------------------- ## 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARKALA POLICE STATION. ## 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, J.** ------------------------------------------------ Crl. Appeal No.964 of 2005 -----------------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of August, 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)-II, Thiruvananthapuram, for the offence under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four and a half years and to pay a fine of 1 lakh and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo₹ simple imprisonment for six months. Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the court below, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 3. The prosecution case is briefly stated as follows: On getting information that illicit arrack was being sold in toddy shop No.T.S.35 at Puthenchanda in Vettoor Village, after preparing and sending a Search Memo to the concerned Crl. Appeal No.964 of 2005 -2- Magistrate, PW5, the Circle Inspector of Police, Varkala, and his party reached that toddy shop at about 8.00 p.m. on 25-11-1999 and conducted a search there. During the search, 86 polythene covers each containing 150 ml. of arrack were found in a black plastic cover and 14 empty polythene covers in another black plastic cover. PW5 opened one polythene cover and ascertained by smelling and tasting that the polythene covers were containing arrack. A measuring glass and scissors were also seen there. PW5 seized all the 85 covers containing arrack, 15 empty covers, measuring glass, scissors and the two black plastic covers under Ext.P1 Search List in the presence of witnesses. He had separately seized three covers containing arrack out of the 85 covers containing arrack as samples. On examining the table there, 15 currency notes of 100/- each, 8₹ currency notes of 50 each and 6 currency notes of 10₹ ₹ each were found. The said currency notes worth 1,960/-₹ were also seized by PW5. He had also arrested the salesman of the toddy shop, who is the first accused in the case. Crl. Appeal No.964 of 2005 -3- Thereafter, PW5 reached Varkala Police Station with the first accused and the properties seized and registered Crime No.397 of 1999 of that Police Station. Ext.P2 is the FIR thus drawn by PW5. He had produced the properties along with Ext.P3 List of Property before the court. He had also produced the Forwarding Note before the court for the purpose of subjecting the samples to chemical examination. Ext.P4 is the copy of that Forwarding Note. He had conducted the investigation of the case. During investigation, he had received Ext.P5 document showing the licensees of the shop. Based on Ext.P5, the licensees were also arrayed as accused 2 and 3 in the case and continued the investigation. Ext.P6 is the report submitted before the court stating that fact. Ext.P7 is the Certificate of Chemical Analysis received from the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory. After completing the investigation, PW5 had submitted the Final Report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Varkala. 4. Since the first accused absconded, the case against Crl. Appeal No.964 of 2005 -4- him was split up and the case against the second accused and the appellant was committed to the Court of Session, Thiruvananthapuram, and, from there, it was made over to the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)-II, Thiruvananthapuram. Subsequently, the second accused was also absconded and hence the case against him was split up. The court below framed a charge against the appellant alleging the offence under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. He had pleaded not guilty of the charge. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and marked Exts.P1 to P9 and MO1 series to MO6 on their side. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He had denied all the incriminating circumstances shown against him. DW1 was examined on the side of the defence. The court below, after considering the matter, found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act and convicted him thereunder. He was heard on the question of sentence and imposed the sentence on him. 5. The appellant has raised various contentions Crl. Appeal No.964 of 2005 -5- challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him. The prosecution case is that PW5 and his party conducted a search in the toddy shop No.T.S.35 and seized the contraband and other properties under Ext.P1 Search List in the presence of witnesses. PW5 is the Detecting Officer. PWs.2 and 3, Police Constables, accompanied PW5 at the time of search. PW3 deposed that he had handed over the Search Memo entrusted to him by PW5 to the Magistrate in person. Since that Search Memo or a copy of that Search Memo had not been marked in this case during trial, in the circumstances of the case, such a case advanced by PW5 or PW3 cannot be accepted as true. PW4 is cited as an independent witness for proving the occurrence. According to the prosecution, he was consuming arrack in that toddy shop at the time of the search. These four witnesses, namely, PWs.2, 3, 4 and 5, by and large, supported the prosecution version of occurrence. CWs.2 and 3 were cited as independent occurrence witnesses for proving the case of the prosecution. They were also cited in Ext.P1 Search List Crl. Appeal No.964 of 2005 -6- for proving the search and search list. CW2 was examined as PW1. He did not support the prosecution case. CW3 was not examined by the prosecution. Whether, relying on the evidence of PWs.2, 3, 4 and 5, conviction can be entered against the appellant for a serious offence under Section 8 (2) of the Abkari Act is the question to be considered and answered. 6. It is the prosecution case that the first accused, salesman in that toddy shop, was arrested by PW5 during the search itself. But, no Arrest Memo was seen prepared by PW5 for arresting the first accused. No Arrest Notice was also seen prepared. None of the official witnesses including PW5 has a case that Arrest Memo or Arrest Notice had been prepared. This Court in **Ramankutty v. Excise Inspector (2013 (3) KHC 308)** , dealing with the necessity of preparing Arrest Memo and Arrest Notice, has held as follows: “It is pertinent to note that the 'arrest memo', a crucial document which is required to be prepared contemporaneously at the time of Crl. Appeal No.964 of 2005 -7- arrest to show the genuineness of arrest, is seen not produced before the Trial Court. Prosecution has no case that though the arrest memo had been prepared at the time of the arrest and seizure, it could not be produced before the Trial Court. So it can be safely concluded that it was not prepared at the time of alleged arrest. It is the violation of one of the mandatory requirements of arrest to be followed in all cases of arrest, which is made mandatory by the Supreme Court in _D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal_ . The specific case of the prosecution is that the Revision petitioner, while coming through a public road carrying a plastic can containing 2 litres of arrack in his hand, was arrested from a road and seized the said contraband by the Preventive Officer and party. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the arrest with the contraband in his hand is the basis of the prosecution case on which the entire case has been built up. If the arrest is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the entire case set up by the prosecution will fall to ground. It is also pertinent to note that there is no evidence to show that one friend or relative or other person known to him was informed of the arrest of the Revision petitioner, immediately after the arrest in compliance with another mandatory requirement of arrest in the Supreme Court decision in _D. K. Basu's case_ . It is apposite to have a look at the said directions of the Supreme Court which read as follows: “That the Police Officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time Crl. Appeal No.964 of 2005 -8- of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may either be a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest. A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee.” The prosecution has no case that they have complied the said directions. I am of the opinion that the non-compliance of the mandatory requirements to be complied at the time of arrest speaks volumes doubting the genuineness of the arrest and it is fatal to prosecution case, as the seizure of the contraband has no existence at all without proving the factum or arrest, beyond reasonable doubt.” It is relevant to note here one more fact. The case of PWs.2, Crl. Appeal No.964 of 2005 -9- 3 and 5 is that the first accused was arrested by PW5 at the time of detection of the offence itself. But, such a case is not endorsed by PW4. According to him, the first accused ran away during the search from the toddy shop. 7. The prosecution case is that PW5 and his party conducted the search in the toddy shop based on the information received by PW5 that arrack was being sold in that toddy shop. Therefore, according to the prosecution, PW5 had prepared a Search Memo and sent the same to the concerned Magistrate and thereafter only conducted the search. Neither the Search Memo claimed to have been prepared by PW5 and sent to the Magistrate nor a copy of that Search Memo had been marked in this case. No such Search Memo or copy of the Search Memo is seen among the records of the case. The Search Memo prepared in such a circumstance should contain certain details as mandated under Section 165 of Cr.P.C because, by Subsection 2 of Section 34 of the Abkari Act, the provisions of Cr.P.C are made applicable to such searches. Unless a copy of the Crl. Appeal No.964 of 2005 -10- Search Memo is produced and marked, the fact whether PW5 had complied with the mandatory provisions under Section 165 of Cr.P.C. cannot be ascertained. It was a matter for the prosecution to adduce evidence for proving their case that a Search Memo as mandated under Section 165 of Cr.P.C had been prepared and sent to the Magistrate before searching the toddy shop. But, no such proof is available. 8. It is noted in Ext.P1 Search List that three covers of arrack were separately seized as samples. Ext.P1 does not show that those three covers of arrack taken as samples were sealed. Moreover, as could be seen from Ext.P1 itself, item-1 among the properties seized during search is described as 85 covers of arrack. If three covers, out of 85 covers totally available, were separately seized as samples, item-1 cannot be described as 85 covers. If, as a matter of fact, three covers were separately taken as samples and sealed, then those three covers sealed should have found a place in Ext.P1 itself. But, those three covers of arrack claimed to have been separately taken as samples and Crl. Appeal No.964 of 2005 -11- sealed are not included among items 1 to 8 of the properties included in Ext.P1. PW2 deposed before the court that sample was taken from the covers which were not opened. While he was confronted with a question as to how many covers were taken as sample, he replied that one cover was so taken. Again the question was repeated. Then he replied that he did not remember. Thereafter, he added that four covers were taken as samples. Therefore, the evidence of PW2 on this aspect will not give a clear picture. Moreover, he does not have a case that the samples were sealed. PW3 deposed that three covers were separately taken and sealed. PW5 also deposed that three covers were taken as samples and sealed them. PW1 did not support the prosecution case. PW4, even though supported the prosecution case, did not say anything about the samples taken or sealing them. In the background of these facts, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that no samples were taken during the search and there is no evidence to show that at what point of time and by whom the sample of Crl. Appeal No.964 of 2005 -12- the contraband was taken. According to him, in the presence of the witnesses shown in Ext.P1, no sample was taken and no bottle was sealed. If any bottle was taken as sample and sealed that fact would have found a place in Ext.P1 Search List itself. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the contrary, submits that the FIR in this case was submitted before the court on the next day of the detection of the offence and on the reverse side of Ext.P1 contains the first information of the case in which it is specifically stated that three packets of arrack were sealed and taken as samples. Ext.P1 Search List is a document prepared contemporaneously. The description of the properties seized by PW5 given in Ext.P1 shall also be taken as a contemporaneous description. Nowhere in Ext.P1 it is stated that the samples were sealed. Moreover, in the list of the properties no packets are shown as samples. 9. The properties in this case were produced before the court by PW5 along with Ext.P3 List of Property. It can be seen from this document that item-1 is described as '3 Crl. Appeal No.964 of 2005 -13- sealed cover' and item-2 is described as '82 covers containing 150 ml. each of arrack'. Such a description appearing in Ext.P3 in respect of items 1 and 2 is not appearing in Ext.P1 Search List. Moreover, Ext.P3 reached the court only on 29-11-1999 with these descriptions in respect of items 1 and 2 and Ext.P4 Forwarding Note reached the court only on 02-12-1999. In these documents only the samples were described as sealed. When all these facts are considered together, this Court cannot ignore the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the sampling was not done at the time of the alleged detection of the offence in the presence of witnesses. The appellant, at least, is entitled to benefit of doubt. Therefore, the report of the Chemical Examiner in Ext.P7 Certificate of Chemical Analysis that ethyl alcohol was detected in the sample is rendered an unreliable one in this case. 10. The prosecution case is that the offence was detected by PW5 and his party on 25-11-1999 and the contraband was seized then and there under Ext.P1 Search Crl. Appeal No.964 of 2005 -14- List. But, he had produced the contraband along with the samples before the court only on 29-11-1999 as evident from Ext.P3 List of Property. PW5, did not offer any explanation for such delay occurred in producing the properties before the court. He had produced Ext.P1 Search List and Ext.P2 FIR on the next day, namely, 26-11-1999. Then, what was the reason for not producing the properties including the contraband before the court on that day along with those documents. Neither PW5 nor any of the official witnesses examined in this case has a case that there was some genuine difficulty for PW5 to produce the properties before the court before 29-11-1999. A Division Bench of this Court in **Ravi v. State of Kerala (2011 (3) KLT 353)** laid down that there should be explanation for the delay when there is delayed production of the property. A learned Single Judge of this Court in **Ramankutty v. Excise Inspector** (supra) found, for the reasons stated in that judgment, that an unexplained delay of a single day is fatal to the prosecution case. In the case on hand, the prosecution has Crl. Appeal No.964 of 2005 -15- not offered any explanation at all for the delay occurred in producing the properties including the contraband before the court. Therefore, the unexplained delay that occurred in producing the properties before the court is fatal to the prosecution in this case and on that ground also the appellant is entitled to an order of acquittal. 11. Where the properties were kept after they were seized by PW5 on 25-11-1999 till they were produced before the court on 29-11-1999? No evidence had been adduced by the prosecution through the witnesses examined by them in respect of that matter. Moreover, there is no evidence as to under whose custody the properties were kept during the said period. In **Narayani v. Excise Inspector (2002 (3) KLT 725)** , a learned Single Judge of this Court observed as follows: “........In the absence of any evidence to prove that residue and sample were kept in the proper custody till the date of producing the same before Court on 13-09-1998 (no evidence is forthcoming as to who was in possession of contraband till it was produced in court and it is evident from the testimony of PW4 that he was not in custody of Crl. Appeal No.964 of 2005 -16- the contraband) the chance of tampering with the sample taken and the residue seized cannot be ruled out. ........” Therefore, in that case, the accused was found to be entitled to benefit of doubt. In the case on hand also, such a benefit should be given to the appellant. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned conviction and sentence passed by the court below against the appellant are liable to be set aside. He is entitled to be acquitted of the offence under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. 13. In the result, the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the court below are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. He is set at liberty. The bail bond executed by him shall stand cancelled. This appeal is allowed. Sd/- **BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE** kns/- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Crl. Appeal No.964 of 2005 -17-