Murukan vs State Of Kerala

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

The prosecution allegation is that on 26.9.2001 at about 6.30 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of ten bottles of Indian made foreign liquor,

each bottle having a capacity of 750 ml each, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act. The total quantity of contraband found in

possession of the appellant was 7.5 lires of Indian made foreign liquor.

Heard.

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since there was unexplained delay in producing the contraband and the sample before the

court, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.

PW1 produced the contraband and the sample before the court. Ext P4 is the property list, which would show that the contraband and the sample

were produced before the court only on 15.11.2001. PW1 stated that the Circle Inspector of Police was on leave. Therefore, PW1 did not produce the

contraband and the sample before the court, as he wanted to show the contraband and the sample to the Circle Inspector of Police. The said

explanation given by PW1 cannot be stated to be a reasonable and plausible reason for the delay from 26.9.2001 to 15.11.2001 in producing the

contraband and the sample before the court. Therefore, it has to be held that there is no explanation for the delayed production of the contraband and

the sample before the court. The delay as such, is not always fatal to the prosecution case. However, if the delay is not properly explained, the same

is, no doubt, fatal to the prosecution case. In this case, there was unexplained delay from 26.9.2001 to 15.11.2001 in producing the contraband and the

sample before the court. Therefore, there cannot be any guarantee that the sample produced before the court and analyed in the laboratory was the

sample taken from the contraband seized from 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.