The Kerala High Court has overturned the conviction of two men accused of illegally transporting large quantities of arrack, after finding multiple lapses in the investigation and violations of mandatory legal procedures. Justice Johnson John, while delivering the judgment on October 9, 2025, observed that the prosecution failed to establish a tamper-proof chain of custody or comply with crucial provisions under the Abkari Act.
Read in Hindi
Background
The case dates back to October 2, 2006, when the Kumbla Police in Kasaragod stopped an autorickshaw driven by Prabhu Prakash with M. Suresh as a passenger. The officers allegedly found 3,000 packets of 100 ml arrack each packed in six plastic sacks. Both men were charged under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act, which deals with unlawful possession or transport of liquor.
In 2010, the Additional District and Sessions Court (Adhoc-III), Kasaragod, found them guilty and sentenced each to four years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1 lakh. The accused challenged the conviction before the High Court, claiming procedural irregularities and lack of credible evidence.
Court's Observations
During the hearing, defence counsel Smt. Saipooja argued that the prosecution’s case suffered from fundamental defects. The seizure mahazar and property list (Exhibits P2 and P7) did not contain the specimen seal impressions, a mandatory safeguard under Section 53A of the Abkari Act, which ensures sample authenticity.
Independent witnesses, PWs 2 and 3, turned hostile, further weakening the prosecution’s case. Justice Johnson John noted,
"The prosecution has a duty to prove that it was the sample taken from the contraband liquor which ultimately reached the hands of the chemical examiner, in a fool-proof condition."
However, in this case, the sample collected on October 3, 2006, reached the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory only on October 26, without proper explanation for the 23-day delay. No evidence was presented from the property clerk or police constable who handled the samples during this period.
The Court further observed that the investigation officer, PW6, failed to describe the nature of the seal used, and did not ensure compliance with Sections 38 and 53A of the Act. The officer even admitted to erasing details from the arrest memo and not verifying the autorickshaw's registration number.
Justice John cited multiple precedents, including Andikutty v. State of Kerala (2023 KHC 777) and Vijay Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 2019 SC 3569), which emphasize that the prosecution must demonstrate a continuous, tamper-proof custody chain.
"Mere production of a laboratory report that the sample tested was contraband cannot be conclusive proof by itself," the bench observed, underscoring that procedural compliance is not optional but essential.
Decision
After analyzing the evidence, the Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to comply with statutory mandates and could not prove the integrity of the seized samples.
Justice John ruled:
"There is violation of the mandate of Sections 53A and 38 of the Abkari Act and no satisfactory evidence to establish a fool-proof chain of custody. The appellants are entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt."
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were set aside. Both accused were acquitted of the offence under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act and set at liberty forthwith.
The judge also ordered that their bail bonds be cancelled and the men released immediately, bringing an end to a nearly two-decade-long legal battle.
Case Title: Prabhu Prakash & Another vs. State of Kerala
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1184 of 2010