9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (hereinafter referred to as Rules 2002 ) from the toddy shop run by the petitioners and sample 'A' was forwarded to the Chemical Examiner. By Annexure A, the Chemical Examiner to Government of Kerala, reported that the sample A contained 8.35% by volume of ethyl alcohol. Rule 9 (2) of the Rules prescribes that the maximum percentage of ethyl alcohol at 8.1%. Since the percentage of alcohol exceeded the limit prescribed as per Rule 9(2) of the Rules, a case was registered for which Annexure E crime and occurrence report was filed. As mandated by Rule 8(3), the crime and occurrence report was submitted before the trial court along with sample B. The petitioners thereafter applied, though not under any of the rules but on the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consequence of the prosecution be only of penal nature, they would have readily waited for the disposal of the case on merits. But according to the learned counsel, unless the prosecution is not interfered under Section 482 Cr.P.C., they would be disqualified to apply for renewal of their licence and it would deprive their livelihood by denying them to do the business that now they are doing and therefore, this is a case where right to life is even in dispute. 4. In the decision reported in Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala (2011 (1) KLT 799) this Court declined to interfere with the investigation in an identical issue during the crime stage. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision in Joshy George v. State of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udge, while allowing the petition, had come to a conclusion that the first report cannot be given credibility under Section 293 Cr.P.C. Whereas the second report is admissible in evidence under Section 293 of the Code even without examining the Chemical Examiner or the Assistant Chemical Examiner, as the case may be. I find that it would be appropriate to have a reading of Section 293 of the Code for a correct appraisal of the case. Section 293 reads as follows: 293. Reports of certain Government scientific experts.-- (1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to whom this section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... course of the proceedings. So, Annexure B report has the support of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Annexure A report wouldn't get such a support as sample A was not sent for examination in the course of proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Code. In this view of the matter, I find that the principle followed in Joshy George's case (supra) is in tune with the statutory provisions. In Sudhakaran's case that legal aspect was not considered. 6. Adding to the above, when there are two conflicting reports in one case, the one which in favour of the accused is to be relied upon so long as the prosecution has no good explanation for impeaching the report in favour of the accused. In this case, as mentioned earlier ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
