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.
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
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State of Kerala Excise
Adv. Addl Public Prosecutor Mavelikara
Respondent(s)
-
1.Soumya Advocate - MIDHUN T M
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
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.
-
31-Mar-2026
Disposed
Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge-III Mavelikara/ Rent Control Appellate Authority
-
30-Mar-2026
Order/ Judgement
Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge-III Mavelikara/ Rent Control Appellate Authority
-
28-Mar-2026
Defence Evidence
Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge-III Mavelikara/ Rent Control Appellate Authority
-
27-Mar-2026
Examination of the Accused U/S 351 Bnss
Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge-III Mavelikara/ Rent Control Appellate Authority
-
26-Mar-2026
Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC
Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge-III Mavelikara/ Rent Control Appellate Authority
-
25-Mar-2026
For Examination of Witness
Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge-III Mavelikara/ Rent Control Appellate Authority
-
17-Mar-2026
For Examination of Witness
Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge-III Mavelikara/ Rent Control Appellate Authority
-
16-Mar-2026
for evidence.
Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge-III Mavelikara/ Rent Control Appellate Authority
-
13-Mar-2026
For Examination of Witness
Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge-III Mavelikara/ Rent Control Appellate Authority
-
12-Mar-2026
For Examination of Witness
Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge-III Mavelikara/ Rent Control Appellate Authority
-
10-Feb-2026
Issue Summons
Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge-III Mavelikara/ Rent Control Appellate Authority
-
11-Dec-2025
Trial in the list
Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge-III Mavelikara/ Rent Control Appellate Authority
-
24-Oct-2025
For framing charge
Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge-III Mavelikara/ Rent Control Appellate Authority
-
09-Sep-2025
For framing charge
Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge-III Mavelikara/ Rent Control Appellate Authority
-
25-Jul-2025
For framing of charge
Addl.Dist.and Sessions Judge-III Mavelikara/ Rent Control Appellate Authority
-
11-Jun-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
02-Jun-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 100625/2025
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