State of Kerala Excise vs Soumya Advocate - MIDHUN T M — 100625/2025

Case under Abkari Act Section 55(i). Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED on 31st March 2026.

Case disposed

SC - SESSIONS CASE

CNR: KLAL140005492025

Filing Number

100358/2025

Filing Date

02-Jun-2025

Registration No

100625/2025

Registration Date

09-Jun-2025

Court

Addl District Court, Mavelikkara/Rent Control Appellate Authority

Judge

3-Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge-III Mavelikara/ Rent Control Appellate Authority

Decision Date

31-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--AQUITTED

Last updated 25-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

123

Police Station

Kayamkulam Excise Range Office

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Abkari Act Section 55(i)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Kerala Excise

    Adv. Addl Public Prosecutor Mavelikara

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Soumya Advocate - MIDHUN T M

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 31-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Case Summary The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Soumya of charges under Section 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act (illegal liquor sale) due to critical evidentiary gaps. Although the Excise Inspector testified to seizing 4.9 liters of foreign liquor from her possession, the court found the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody for the chemical sample—specifically, there was no explanation for who held the sample between court receipt (23.11.2024) and lab receipt (26.11.2024). Additionally, the key witness corroborating the seizure turned hostile, and the alleged customer present during the transaction was never examined. The court concluded reasonable doubt favored acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 31-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge-III Mavelikara/ Rent Control Appellate Authority

  4. 30-Mar-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge-III Mavelikara/ Rent Control Appellate Authority

  5. 28-Mar-2026

    Defence Evidence

    Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge-III Mavelikara/ Rent Control Appellate Authority

  6. 27-Mar-2026

    Examination of the Accused U/S 351 Bnss

    Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge-III Mavelikara/ Rent Control Appellate Authority

  7. 26-Mar-2026

    Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC

    Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge-III Mavelikara/ Rent Control Appellate Authority

  8. 25-Mar-2026

    For Examination of Witness

    Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge-III Mavelikara/ Rent Control Appellate Authority

  9. 17-Mar-2026

    For Examination of Witness

    Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge-III Mavelikara/ Rent Control Appellate Authority

  10. 16-Mar-2026

    for evidence.

    Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge-III Mavelikara/ Rent Control Appellate Authority

  11. 13-Mar-2026

    For Examination of Witness

    Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge-III Mavelikara/ Rent Control Appellate Authority

  12. 12-Mar-2026

    For Examination of Witness

    Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge-III Mavelikara/ Rent Control Appellate Authority

  13. 10-Feb-2026

    Issue Summons

    Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge-III Mavelikara/ Rent Control Appellate Authority

  14. 11-Dec-2025

    Trial in the list

    Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge-III Mavelikara/ Rent Control Appellate Authority

  15. 24-Oct-2025

    For framing charge

    Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge-III Mavelikara/ Rent Control Appellate Authority

  16. 09-Sep-2025

    For framing charge

    Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge-III Mavelikara/ Rent Control Appellate Authority

  17. 25-Jul-2025

    For framing of charge

    Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge-III Mavelikara/ Rent Control Appellate Authority

  18. 11-Jun-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  19. 02-Jun-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 100625/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Soumya of charges under Section 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act (illegal liquor sale) due to critical evidentiary gaps. Although the Excise Inspector testified to seizing 4.9 liters of foreign liquor from her possession, the court found the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody for the chemical sample—specifically, there was no explanation for who held the sample between court receipt (23.11.2024) and lab receipt (26.11.2024). Additionally, the key witness corroborating the seizure turned hostile, and the alleged customer present during the transaction was never examined. The court concluded reasonable doubt favored acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case