CRL.R.P. Nos.509/2012 & 532/2012 This is a Kerala High Court criminal revision petition involving two CBI challenges to discharge orders in CC 1/2008 before the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Lakshadweep. Accused No.8 in one petition is Syed Shai ko ya (a Lakshadweep official) and Accused No.4 in the other is K.R. Venkitachalam, Officer on Special Duty (Education), Lakshadweep Administration. The Directorate of Education had directed supply of ready-made uniforms for 2005-06; a committee’s tender evaluation led to alleged sub-standard purchases and forged entries. Accused 4 and 8, along with others, filed discharge applications under Section 239 Cr.P.C., which were dismissed. The court later considered whether sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was necessary before prosecuting them for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC. The Special Court discharged them on the ground of lack of sanction. The High Court examined the jurisprudence on Section 197(1) Cr.P.C., citing Amrik Singh, Matajog Dobey, Pukhraj, Sankaran Moitra, Devinder Singh, D.Devaraja, and Sheetla Sahai to articulate the test for “reasonable connection” between acts and official duties and when sanction is required. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the revision petitions, upholding the discharge and leaving the Special Court’s order intact. The matter emphasizes the nuanced application of sanction requirements across stages of proceedings.
WP(C).Nos.41156/17 & 9553/18 The captioned writ petitions, WP(C) No. 41156 of 2017 (T) and WP(C) No. 9553 of 2018, are materially connected regarding a check dam built on the land of Abdul Latheef C.K. at Vettilappara, Eranadu Taluk, Malappuram, near a hillock that shelters a tribal colony. The petitioner-owner challenges Exhibit-P7, a demolition order dated 08.12.2017 issued by the District Collector, Malappuram, directing demolition to ensure free flow of a natural watercourse and to mitigate landslide risk. The second petition, filed by All Kerala River Protection Council, seeks demolition of the dam and the water theme park allegedly operated by P.V. Anvar, MLA, arguing violations of multiple statutes including the Kerala Mines and Minerals Act (1957), the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act (2003), Disaster Management Act (2005), and the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (1994), asserting vesting of watercourses in the Panchayat and requiring permissions for any interference with water flow. The Court, after hearing, relies on extensive official reports, expert committee findings, and the public-trust paradigm to assess environmental and tribal impacts. Ultimately, the Court dismisses WP(C) No.41156/2017 for lack of illegality in the demolition order, and treats WP(C) No.9553/2018 as infructuous since the water was drained, while directing ongoing monitoring to prevent future obstructions of natural water courses and to ensure compliance with statutory obligations.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal revision petition by the accused, KUMARAN P.K., challenging concurrent convictions for offences under sections 509, 324 and 307 IPC, and the appellate conversion of the 307 conviction to 326 IPC with reduced sentence. The trial court had found the appellant guilty of insulting modesty (section 509 IPC) and assault with a weapon (sections 324 and 307 IPC), resulting in injuries to PW1 and other incidents involving PW2, including obscene gestures by the accused. The Sessions Court upheld these findings, and the High Court, on appeal, converted the 307 conviction to section 326 IPC and reduced the sentence. In the revision petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the weapon (MO1) was not proven and that the principal ocular witnesses (PW1 and PW2) were interested witnesses; hence the conviction under section 326 IPC could not be sustained, and the recovery of MO1 could not be said to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The respondent State/PP supported the findings of guilt and asserted the credibility of ocular and medical evidence (PW5, PW6) and the recovery (PW13, Ext.P5). The High Court reaffirmed the permissible limits of revision under CrPC sections 397/401 and found no illegality or impropriety requiring interference; the petition was dismissed as the evidence supported the verdict and the sentence was reasonable.
This criminal miscellaneous case arises from a Vigilance/Anti-Corruption Bureau investigation in Thiruvananthapuram into alleged illegal construction and regularization in a heritage zone. The petitioner (Accused No.7) challenges proceedings in C.C.No.3/2020 arising from Crime No.3/2009/SIU-1 of VACB, Thiruvananthapuram, for offences under section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) and section 120B of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The facts show the 6th accused, a building owner, sought to renovate an old structure (T.C.No.28/1830) in a heritage zone. An architect, the 7th accused, prepared a plan for internal renovation and obtained approval and a license. Prosecution alleges that, under the guise of renovation, the old building was demolished and a new four-storied structure was erected, with alleged conspiracy among the 6th accused and several public servants and the 7th accused. The petitioner contends he was merely engaged in professional work—preparing plans and submitting applications—and was not involved in construction or conspiracy; any breach would at most lead to civil liability or professional discipline, not criminal liability. He cites professional-privilege principles and a cited precedent to argue lack of prima facie criminal liability. The court held there is no evidence of conspiracy or direct involvement by the 7th accused and quashed the criminal proceedings against him, underscoring that professional opinions or undertakings alone do not trigger criminal liability.
Muhammadali, the sole accused in SC No. 458/2013 before the Special Court for the trial of offences under the POCSO Act at Thalassery, challenges the trial court’s conviction for offences under Sections 9(i) and 9(m) read with 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The prosecution’s case rests on the testimony of PW2, a five-year-old girl, who testified that on 11 January 2013 the accused lured her to his house by promising ice cream, removed her panties, and inserted a finger into her vagina, constituting sexual assault and amounting to aggravated sexual assault under Section 9(m) read with 10. The trial court acquitted the accused of Section 377 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Act but convicted him under 9(i)/10 and 9(m)/10, sentencing seven years’ RI and a fine of Rs. 50,000 with default imprisonment. The High Court examines four grounds of challenge: (i) delay in reporting the incident; (ii) PW2’s testimony alleged to be tutored; (iii) suppression of material witnesses; and (iv) alleged gaps in medical evidence. The court finds the five-day delay explainable given the family circumstances, rejects tutoring claims, and notes non-examination of two boys who were not witnesses to the act is not a serious infirmity. Medical evidence is of limited probative value due to the delay. The court holds that the 9(i)/10 conviction cannot be sustained beyond reasonable doubt but the 9(m)/10 offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal is allowed in part: 9(i)/10 set aside; 9(m)/10 upheld, with five years’ RI and Rs. 10,000 fine (default RI of one month). The fine is to be paid as compensation to PW1 on behalf of PW2, and set-off under Section 428 CrPC is granted.
W.P.(C) No.7653 OF 2021(F) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges Ext.P4, an order dated 03.12.2020 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, and seeks a mandamus directing the District Collector to dispose of Ext.P5, a revision petition dated 19.01.2021 filed under Rule 18(iv) of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966. The petitioners contend Ext.P5 is pending and requires prompt consideration; it is sought as a remedy against the order in Ext.P4. The petition elaborates the procedural framework under Rule 18, including the timeline for appeals (i), the possibility of condoning delays (ii), the requirement for certified copies (iii), and the inviolability of hearing rights. The respondents’ side, represented by the Government Pleader, submits that if Ext.P5 is in order and pending, the District Collector should consider it and pass appropriate orders with notice to petitioners and affected parties within a timeframe fixed by the court. The court, after hearing both sides, disposes of the petition by directing the District Collector to examine Ext.P5 (if properly filed) and decide in accordance with law, with notice to all concerned, within two months of certified copy of the judgment. It reiterates the principle that mandamus cannot compel actions contrary to law and must conform to statutory provisions. No order as to costs.
Pathummamma, an elderly resident (aged 68) of Malappuram district, petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus to the Deputy Collector (LR) to conduct an expeditious enquiry and dispose of S.M.No.11/2021 before the Land Tribunal (Devaswom), Malappuram. The suo motu proceeding was initiated by the Land Tribunal under Rule 5 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and Assignment) Rules, 1970, for assignment of the landlord’s right, title and interest vested in the Government under Section 72 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and for issuance of a certificate of purchase under Section 72K read with Rule 14 of the same Rules, in respect of about 6.88 acres of land in Sy.No.351/6-1, Nannambra Village. The petitioner argues that she is a senior citizen and that the court should ensure an expeditious disposal of such matters; it notes the large pendency (over 8,500 suo motu cases) and highlights directions issued in Narayanan Namboodiri v. Tahsildar (Land Reforms) and another (W.P.(C) No.28398 of 2017) to prioritize senior citizens and dispose cases on seniority basis, including use of Village Officers for reports. The court accepts the need for speed but insists on adherence to seniority and the established directives, directing the Land Tribunal to dispose of S.M.No.11/2021 strictly in accordance with law and Narayanan Namboodiri’s directions. No order as to costs.
Criminal Appeal No. 2089 of 2007 Aggrieved by a conviction under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act, Rajappan @ Vava challenged his trial court’s judgment in this Kerala High Court criminal appeal. The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc), Mavelikkara, had convicted him for possessing 1.5 litres of illicit arrack on 5 October 2000 and sentenced him to three and a half years’ rigorous imprisonment with a Rs. 1,00,000 fine. The key issue for the appellate court was whether the prosecution had established the link between the contraband seized at the scene and the sample subjected to chemical analysis, and whether the sample’s chain of custody and the seal were properly proved. The defense argued that crucial documentary and testimonial details—such as the seal’s description on the bottle, the forwarding note’s details of who received and forwarded the sample to the Chemical Examiner, and witnesses to attest tamper‑proof despatch—were missing. The court examined the evidence (Exts. P1–P8 and MO1) and observed that the sample altered hands and that no witness testified about seal integrity, undermining the credibility of the laboratory certificate (Ext. P8). Relying on Bhaskaran K. v. State of Kerala (2020 KHC 5296), Kumaran v. State of Kerala (2016 (4) KLT 718), and Vijay Pandey, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the tamper‑proof despatch and the identity of the analysed sample, and thus could not sustain the conviction. The appeal is allowed and the accused is acquitted.
This is a criminal appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2014) filed by the accused, K.R. Babu, challenging the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court under Section 8(1) r/w 8(2) of the Abkari Act, vide judgment dated 2.1.2014 in SC 662/2012 before the Additional District & Sessions Judge II, Pathanamthitta. The prosecution alleged that on 1.10.2013 excise officials recovered contraband arrack from a toddy shop licensed in favor of the 2nd accused, and offences under the Abkari Act were registered. The trial court convicted and imposed imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs, with default imprisonment, and held the accused guilty under Section 56(b) Abkari Act. On appeal, the defence contended that the case against the 2nd accused (the licensee) could not stand without a conviction of the 1st accused, citing Mohanan P.M. v. State of Kerala (2010 (2) KLT 783), and argued deficiencies in the sample collection process: lack of tamper-proof seals on the samples, mahazar, forwarding note, and the chemical analysis chain. The State countered with reliance on the chemical analysis and officer testimony, claiming adherence to required protocols. Ultimately, the Kerala High Court found serious omissions in establishing tamper-proof collection and chain of custody, and held that the prosecution failed beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence set aside, and the appellant was acquitted with the bail bond cancelled and refunds ordered where applicable.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal misc. case (Cr.M.C. No. 352 of 2017) filed by accused Nos. 3, 8 and 9 in Crime No. 39/2005 of Vallikunnam Police Station. The original FIR listed offences including rioting, criminal trespass, and related violent offences under IPC, with additional charges under 153(A)(1)(a)(b) read with 120B and 302 read with 149. The petition sought to quash all proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that Annexure II to the judgment in SC 594/2005 and a subsequent acquittal in Crl.A. 1561/2009 left no substratum for trial. The court examined whether the substratum was lost due to these findings, and whether the acquittal of co-accused could bar continuing proceedings. It extensively discussed Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police and subsequent Kerala authorities, and clarified that acquittal of co-accused on the basis of appreciation of evidence does not automatically bar trial of others; it rejected the argument that Annexure II’s observations rendered a substratum loss. The judge ultimately held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to quash the ongoing trial and dismissed the petition. The decision underscores the primacy of allowing the trial to proceed unless a clear, exceptional substratum loss is established.
This Kerala High Court criminal appeal (CR A (V) No.1266 of 2016) arises from an acquittal under Sec. 302 IPC by the trial court in a murder case involving Balakrishnan Nambiar. The appellant, Lakshmi, wife of the deceased, challenges the acquittal of the accused. The bench, comprising Judges K. Vinod Chandran and C. Jayachandran, reiterates the broad scope of appellate power in acquittals, citing Chandrappa and others v. State of Karnataka to emphasize that an appellate court may re‑appreciate and review the evidence and that no inflexible standard restricts this power. The court notes a double presumption in favor of the accused on acquittal and acknowledges that two reasonable conclusions may arise from the evidence; in such a case the appellate court should not disturb the trial court’s acquittal. The appeal centers on circumstantial evidence, including the absence of ocular witnesses, “last seen together” theory, and recoveries under Sec. 27; however, the majority finds gaps in the chain of evidence, inconsistent testimonies (notably PW1–PW2 relatives), and questionable recoveries. The court also discusses the relevance of Prahlad, Sunil Clifford Daniel, and Madhu Madhuranatha in evaluating circumstantial cases, concluding that the acquittal remains justified. Ultimately, the High Court dismisses the appeal, upholding the trial court’s acquittal of the accused.
This writ petition concerns a landowner, Sheela, who challenged Ext.P3, a notice dated 01/03/2019 issued by the Secretary of the Elakamon Grama Panchayath directing removal of a tamarind tree on her property (Sy.No.3119, Ayiroor Village, Varkala). Sheela had earlier sold an adjacent property to her husband for construction (sale deed Ext.P1). The third respondent, Savithri, lodged complaints about trees on the petitioner’s land, prompting the Panchayat’s action under Section 238 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The petition sought certiorari to quash Ext.P3 and mandamus restraining further action until disposal of the petition. The court noted that Ext.P3 was issued under sub-section (1) of Section 238 and analyzed the statutory framework distinguishing sub-section (1) powers (requiring notice to the owner and potential action after due process) from sub-section (2) powers (Secretary’s powers to prune or remove hedges or trees without notice). Relying on Joseph V.M. v. Kadanad Grama Panchayat (2019 (3) KHC 545), the court held that the order was issued without authority and cannot be sustained. The petition was allowed; Ext.P3 was set aside, but the Panchayat may reconsider the complaint under sub-section (1) after serving a copy to the petitioner and decide expeditiously, within one month, in accordance with law. Interim stay granted earlier stood renewed as appropriate.
This Kerala High Court judgment concerns CRL.A No. 954 of 2016, arising from a brutal Onam-day murder in Vasupuram, Thrissur district. Eighteen accused were charged under multiple IPC sections including 302 (murder), 324 (causing hurt with weapons), 307 (attempt to murder), and allied provisions, with a larger conspiracy under 120B alleged but not proved. The trial court convicted A1–A4 and A7; others were acquitted. The High Court re-examines the evidence, noting that PW1’s eyewitness testimony is central but contains inconsistencies, and several other witnesses (PW2, PW3, PW8, PW9, PW15) were disbelieved or deemed unreliable. The post-mortem (Ext. P27) described 16 incised wounds with death caused by blood loss and shock, and the medical evidence supported the brutality of the attack. The prosecution relied on weapon recoveries (MO1, MO6, MO9, MO10) and call-detail evidence; the defense attacked the reliability of PW1 and suggested planted testimony. The court ultimately upholds the conviction and the life-imprisonment sentences, while acknowledging that the larger conspiracy under 120B was not established. It emphasizes that falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not an automatic rule, and that credibility must be weighed with care. The appeal is dismissed and the sentences affirmed.
Instant writ appeal concerns reconstitution of an LPG distributorship of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited after the death of the sole proprietor, Lekshmi. The appellants are legal heirs who, after forming a partnership, sought reconstitution in their names, or inclusion of the third respondent in the distributorship. BPCL did not decide on the appellants’ request, prompting a writ petition that was dismissed by a single judge. The appellants contend that succession law automatically transmits rights to legal heirs and that the norms governing reconstitution should be those in force at the time of death, not the later 2018 guidelines. They challenge reliance on Ext.P2 guidelines, arguing Clauses 3.4 and 3.5 entitle reconstitution in favor of legal heirs and that the third respondent’s unwillingness to join cannot veto the heirs’ rights. They also contend that the Will alleged by the third respondent was declared invalid by a competent civil court, and termination of the distributorship solely for non-cooperation would cause irreparable harm, particularly since the distributorship was allotted to honor a fallen soldier’s family. The respondents argued that the 2018 guidelines relate to retail outlets and not LPG RO dealerships, and that Ext.P2 was the governing document when the writ petition was filed. The Division Bench set aside the writ court’s reliance on retail guidelines and held that clause 3.4 of the revised policy guidelines applies to LPG dealerships, directing BPCL to decide within two months of this judgment, thereby disposing of the writ appeal.
This appeal is a challenge to an award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arising from a road-traffic collision on 14 November 1999 in which the claimant Sudhakaran, a pillion rider on a motorcycle, sustained injuries when his vehicle collided with a jeep owned by the first respondent and driven by the second respondent, with insurance by the third respondent. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, found the jeep driver negligent and held the insurer liable to indemnify, awarding Rs. 38,316 under various heads with 7.5% interest from 04.06.2002. The claimant challenged the quantum, seeking enhancement. Following an order of 25.07.2019 directing a Medical Board to assess permanent disability, the Special Medical Board subsequently certified 10% whole-body disability. The court re-examined the claimant’s notional monthly income as Rs.2,250 (taking into account the 1999 date of accident) and applied the multiplier 17 (as per Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi) to calculate compensation for permanent disability (Rs.45,900). It also enhanced heads such as loss of earning (Rs.11,250), extra nourishment (Rs.4,200), bystander expenses (Rs.6,300), and loss of amenities (Rs.10,000), among others, leading to a total additional compensation of Rs.62,400 with 8% interest. The insurer is directed to satisfy this amount within two months from certified copy, after deducting any statutory liabilities; no costs awarded. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vijayan s/o Gopalan, the appellant, was convicted by the trial court under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act for possession of 100 bottles of foreign liquor and sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment plus a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The evidence placed the contraband at the residence of the accused on 2 April 2000. On appeal, the Kerala High Court, per K. Babu, J., examined whether the conviction could stand, focusing on delays in producing seized articles, the chain of custody, and whether the articles ultimately reached the chemical analyst in a tamper-proof condition. The court relied on jurisprudence requiring that the seizure be reported forthwith to court and that any delay must be explained; it emphasized that the link between the seized sample and the lab analysis is crucial, and that mere laboratory reports are not conclusive unless the specimen seal and forwarding notes are properly established. It cited several Kerala and Supreme Court decisions noting deficiencies in seals, forwarding notes, and possession theories. Ultimately, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove conscious possession and to establish a direct link between the contraband and the seized sample that reached the laboratory. The result: the Cr.A is allowed, and the appellant is acquitted and set at liberty, with the conviction reversed.”
This writ petition by Akhila challenges the custodial death of her husband Sreejith and seeks (i) transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and (ii) compensation. The petition describes a sequence beginning with the assault on Sreejith by civil police officers during custody for the incident on 6.4.2018, leading to his death on 9.4.2018. It details an FIR (Crime No.312/2018) at Varapuzha Police Station for offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 323, 324, 427 and 450 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 27(1) Arms Act; Sreejith, though not named in the FIR, was arrested and subjected to alleged torture, later dying in hospital. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) was formed to probe, and the petitioner alleges a district-level conspiracy involving police officials and political figures, with concerns about forensic evidence manipulation and political interference. The petitioner cites Supreme Court precedents (R.S. Sodhi; Sube Singh; Narmada Bai; Rashmi Behl) to urge CBI supervision in custodial-death cases. The State argues the SIT investigation is credible, that the accused policemen were arrested, and that compensation has already been paid; it asserts no need for CBI. The High Court distinguishes the cited cases, finding the State Police investigation not improper or biased and declines to order CBI; the petition is dismissed.
WP(C).No.14486 of 2020(I) The petitioner, Javad K. Hassan, challenges in a writ petition the inaction and proposed reassessment of property described as 275 cents in Sy. Nos. 950/2 and 951/1 in Aluva East Village (Keezhmadu) on the Basic Tax Register (BTR). Although described as nilam/paddy land, the land was converted to garden land/purayidam long before the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 came into force (12-08-2008). The petitioner had already filed an application on 04-01-1996 under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (KLU Order) seeking change of user to non-agricultural purposes, and the 1st respondent RDO issued Ext.P2 on 02-03-1996 allowing the conversion after due enquiry. The petitioner now seeks reassessment under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 via Ext.P3 dated 25-06-2020 to reflect the changed land status in the BTR and obtain fresh entries as garden land/purayidam. The High Court notes a line of precedents, including LLMC v. Mariumma, Geo Peter, Renjith K. Paul, and Tahsildar v. Renjith George, which hold that when a valid Rule 6(2) order predates 12-08-2008, amendments under the 2008 Act do not bar such pre-existing conversions. The court directs the RDO to consider Ext.P3 promptly and, if Ext.P2 overlaps, to pass fresh assessment orders to reflect the change, without compelling payment under amended provisions, and within a six-week window, while complying with prior judgments (notably Mariumma). The petition is disposed with directions.
This is a Kerala High Court revision petition by tenant N. Prasanna challenging an order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority that enhanced rent for the tenanted premises from Rs 1,500 to Rs 2,460 per month. The tenancy commenced in 1998 under Ext. A1 lease, originally fixed at Rs 900 with a clause for periodic increases of 15% every three years, but no increase had been effected for about two decades. The revision petitioner contends that the premises are small (about 140 sq ft), old, and lacking amenities, and that there is no reliable evidence to establish the prevailing rent in the locality; thus, the appellate rent is unjustified. The respondents urged that the area has witnessed inflation and increased demand; Exts. A3–A4 show rents of around Rs 3,000, and PW1 testified to the need for enhancement. The Rent Control Court had fixed Rs 1,500; the Appellate Authority raised it to Rs 2,460, basing its calculation on a 10% bank lending rate as a proxy for money value and applying the Ext. A1 mechanism, along with judicial notice of economic changes. The High Court, after analyzing the evidence and the Edger Ferus precedent, upheld the appellate determination, finding no illegality in the approach and dismissing the revision petition.
This Kerala High Court criminal appeal arises from a conviction under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. The appellant, Puthan Veettil Ambujakshan, was found guilty by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-III, Thalassery, for possessing 300 sachets of Karnataka arrack (100 ml each) in a sack seized on 06.11.2001 by PW4 at Ulikkal Police Station. The prosecution contended that two sachets' contents were transferred into a 300 ml bottle and that the sample was sent for chemical examination, with Ext.P6 indicating ethyl alcohol. However, several independent witnesses turned hostile; PW1 and PW3 did not support the prosecution version of seizure, and PW5 had no jurisdiction or written authorisation for Abkari investigation. The defense argued that MO2 sachets were empty when produced and that no proper inventory or seal specimen was proven; Ext.P5 forwarding note lacked the seal impression linking the sample to the tested liquor, and no proof connected the seized liquor with the sample tested by the Chemical Examiner. The trial court’s conviction was attacked on grounds of improper investigation, lack of jurisdiction, absence of inventory, potential chain-of-custody defects, and lack of proof that the tested sample was the same liquor seized. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to establish necessary safeguards and connection, and accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence, granting liberty to the appellant.
