IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 2993 of 2007()
1. HARIHARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :10/08/2007
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Crl. R.P. No. 2993 OF 2007
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 10th day of August, 2007
O R D E R
The revision petitioner was the 1st accused in
S.C.No.40/2006 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court
(Fast Track-II), Thrissur. He challenges the order dated
12.6.07 passed by the said court allowing the request of the
Public Prosecutor to despatch 10 bottles from each of the four
cartons in court for chemical analysis.
2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as
follows:-
On 7.5.2004 the 2nd accused was found driving an
autorikshaw with four cartons of Indian Made Foreign Liquor
altogether having a total number of 96 bottles belonging to the
3rd accused and the 1st accused(revision petitioner herein)
was travelling inside the autorikshaw along with the
contraband liquor. The accused has thereby committed an
offence punishable under section 55(a) of the Abkari Act.
Crl.R.P.No.2993/07
: 2 :
3. At the time of search and seizure, the detecting
officer had taken only four bottles as sample (one bottle from
each of the cartons). The final report in this case was filed on
20.7.05. After the decision of this court in Krishnankutty Vs.
State of Kerala [2005 (3) KLT 568] to the effect that sufficient
sample in excess of the permissible quantity should be taken
from the bottles, the Prosecutor in charge of the case filed the
above petition, namely Crl.M.P.No.1606/2007 requesting to
forward 10 more bottles from each of the cartons. The prayer
initially was to forward five bottles each from each of the
cartons and which prayer was amended as 10, presumably in
view of the fact that the permissible quantity of IMFL after
2.8.2003 was three litres and each of the bottles in the four
cartons had only a capacity of 375 litres and in order to arrive
at a quantity in excess of the permissible limit sample in
excess of 3 litres had to be taken. Eventhough the request
made by the Public Prosecutor was opposed by the accused
including the revision petitioner herein, the court below as per
the impugned order dated 12.6.07 allowed the request.
Crl.R.P.No.2993/07
: 3 :
Hence, this revision.
4. Eventhough the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner re-iterated his objection to the request made by the
Public Prosecutor for despatching 10 bottles each from each
of the four cartons, I do not think that the accused have been
seriously prejudiced by the impugned order. All that the court
has done is to despatch for analysis sufficient number of
sample from each of the cartons produced in the case and
kept in the court. The trial of the court is yet to be started and
the revision petitioner cannot plead any prejudice or failure of
justice in the act of the court in allowing the request of the
prosecution. It goes without saying that whatever defences
are available to the accused arising out of the despatch of
additional samples pursuant to the impugned order can be
raised by them during trial.
This revision is accordingly dismissed.
(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)
aks