Court highlights non-compliance with mandatory procedures, granting the accused the benefit of doubt in seizure and prosecution.
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has set aside the conviction of A. Raju, who was sentenced under the Abkari Act for the possession of illicit arrack. The court, presided over by Justice Jobin Sebastian, concluded that crucial procedural lapses in the certification of inventory under Section 53A of the Abkari Act cast doubt on the prosecution's case, warranting the acquittal of the accused.
The case dates back to September 26, 2009, when Raju was apprehended with four litres of illicit arrack. The Assistant Sessions Court in Hosdurg initially found him guilty and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. The conviction was upheld by the Sessions Court, Kasaragod.
However, upon appeal, the High Court scrutinized the procedural adherence, particularly the absence of the Magistrate's signature or seal on the inventory of the seized contraband. The court emphasized that the certification of inventory is not a mere formality but a mandatory requirement to ensure the integrity of the evidence.
The court noted that the failure to follow the procedures under Section 53A, which mandates the Magistrate's certification of inventory, photographs, or samples, undermined the prosecution's case. The absence of the Magistrate's authentication on the inventory made the seizure and subsequent prosecution questionable.
Justice Sebastian observed that such procedural lapses entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt, emphasizing that the inventory serves as primary evidence in Abkari cases. Consequently, the court allowed the revision petition, overturning the conviction and directing the refund of the fine amount to Raju.
This judgment underscores the necessity of strict compliance with procedural mandates in criminal prosecutions, particularly under special statutes like the Abkari Act, to uphold the principles of justice.
Bottom line:-
Compliance with mandatory procedures under Section 53A of the Abkari Act is essential, and failure to do so renders the seizure and prosecution case doubtful, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt.
Statutory provision(s): Section 53A of the Abkari Act, Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
A. Raju v. State of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc id # 2905678
