Jayadevan vs State Of Kerala

The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the court below under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act.

The prosecution allegation is that on 11.8.2004 at about 11.15 a.m., the appellant was found in possession of nine bottles of Indian made foreign

liquor, each bottle having a capacity of 180 ml each and ten bottles of Indian made foreign liquor, each bottle having a capacity of 375 ml each, in

contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act. The total quantity of contraband found in possession of the appellant was 5.375 lires.

Since there is no appearance for the appellant, this Court has appointed Adv.Satheesh Alakkadan as the Amicus Curiae to argue the case for the

appellant.

Heard the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned Amicus Curiae has argued that since there was unexplained delay in producing the samples before the court, the appellant is entitled to

the benefit of doubt.

Ext P4 is the property list, which would show that the samples were produced before the court only on 16.8.2004. PW1 produced the contraband

and the samples before the court. PW1 did not state anything about the date of production of the contraband and the samples before the court. No

evidence was adduced by the prosecution for the delay in producing the samples before the court. The delay as such, is not always fatal to the

prosecution case.

However, if the delay is not explained, the same is, no doubt, fatal to the prosecution case. In this case, since there was unexplained delay in producing

the samples before the court from 11.8.2004 to 16.8.2004, there cannot be any guarantee that the samples produced before the court and analyed in

the laboratory were the samples taken from the contraband allegedly possessed by the appellant. In the said circumstances, the appellant is entitled to

benefit of doubt.

In the result, this Appeal stands allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the court below and the appellant stands acquitted. The

bail bond of the appellant stands discharged.