State of Kerala Excise vs Santhosh kumar — 101398/2019
Case under Abkari Act Section 55(a)(i). Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED on 31st March 2026.
SC - SESSIONS CASE
CNR: KLKM270005282019
Filing Number
100331/2019
Filing Date
05-11-2019
Registration No
101398/2019
Registration Date
05-11-2019
Court
Sub Court Karunagappally
Judge
1-Sub Judge
Decision Date
31st March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--AQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
22
Police Station
Karunagappally Excise Range
Year
2019
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala Excise
Adv. Baiju N.S.
Respondent(s)
Santhosh kumar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Sub Judge
Disposed
Call on
FOR HEARING
Defence Evidence
For 313
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 31-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 28-03-2026 | Call on |
| 25-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 24-03-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 21-03-2026 | For 313 |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State of Kerala Excise v. Santhosh Kumar (S.C. 1398/2019) Santhosh Kumar was acquitted of charges under Section 55(a)(i) of the Abkari Act for allegedly possessing 53.5 liters of IMFL for illicit sale. The court found critical procedural failures: the independent witness denied witnessing the search and seizure, the prosecution failed to produce the seized contraband or certified inventory as required, and the chain of custody was not properly established per High Court guidelines in *Vijayan v. State of Kerala*. Key officials (thondy clerk, sample transport officer) were never examined, and the forwarding note lacked officer details. The court held that without proper chain of custody procedures and physical production of contraband, the chemical examination report could not be relied upon, rendering the prosecution case insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State of Kerala Excise v. Santhosh Kumar (S.C. 1398/2019) Santhosh Kumar was acquitted of charges under Section 55(a)(i) of the Abkari Act for allegedly possessing 53.5 liters of IMFL for illicit sale. The court found critical procedural failures: the independent witness denied witnessing the search and seizure, the prosecution failed to produce the seized contraband or certified inventory as required, and the chain of custody was not properly established per High Court guidelines in *Vijayan v. State of Kerala*. Key officials (thondy clerk, sample transport officer) were never examined, and the forwarding note lacked officer details. The court held that without proper chain of custody procedures and physical production of contraband, the chemical examination report could not be relied upon, rendering the prosecution case insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts