State of Kerala Excise vs Santhosh kumar — 101398/2019

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

Case disposed

SC - SESSIONS CASE

CNR: KLKM270005282019

Filing Number

100331/2019

Filing Date

05-Nov-2019

Registration No

101398/2019

Registration Date

05-Nov-2019

Court

Sub Court Karunagappally

Judge

1-Sub Judge

Decision Date

31-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--AQUITTED

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

22

Police Station

Karunagappally Excise Range

Year

2019

Acts & Sections

Abkari Act Section 55(a)(i)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Kerala Excise

    Adv. Baiju N.S.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Santhosh kumar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 31-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    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.

  3. 31-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Sub Judge

  4. 28-Mar-2026

    Call on

    Sub Judge

  5. 25-Mar-2026

    For Hearing

    Sub Judge

  6. 24-Mar-2026

    Defence Evidence

    Sub Judge

  7. 21-Mar-2026

    For 313

    Sub Judge

  8. 13-Mar-2026

    Produce witnesses

    Sub Judge

  9. 23-Feb-2026

    for evidence.

    Sub Judge

  10. 10-Feb-2026

    Produce witnesses

    Sub Judge

  11. 29-Jan-2026

    Call on

    Sub Judge

  12. 20-Dec-2025

    Repeat Summons

    Sub Judge

  13. 27-Oct-2025

    Repeat Summons

    Sub Judge

  14. 03-Jun-2025

    Call on

    Sub Judge

  15. 24-Feb-2025

    Call on

    Sub Judge

  16. 19-Dec-2024

    No sitting notified

    Sub Judge

  17. 04-Nov-2024

    No sitting notified

    Sub Judge

  18. 21-Aug-2024

    Hearing on Charge

    Sub Judge

  19. 20-May-2024

    Hearing on Charge

    Sub Judge

  20. 22-Nov-2023

    Hearing on Charge

    Sub Judge

  21. 20-Jun-2023

    Call on

    Sub Judge

  22. 18-Mar-2023

    No sitting notified

    Sub Judge

  23. 01-Dec-2022

    Call on

    Sub Judge

  24. 16-Jul-2022

    Call on

    Sub Judge

  25. 22-Feb-2022

    Adjourned

    Sub Judge

  26. 10-Nov-2021

    Adjourned

    Sub Judge

  27. 09-Aug-2021

    Adjourned

    Sub Judge

  28. 05-Jul-2021

    No sitting notified

    Sub Judge

  29. 03-Mar-2021

    No Further Time

    Sub Judge

  30. 23-Nov-2020

    No sitting notified

    Sub Judge

  31. 11-Aug-2020

    Adjourned

    Sub Judge

  32. 02-Jun-2020

    Adjourned

    Sub Judge

  33. 21-Jan-2020

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  34. 05-Nov-2019

    Case filed

    Registration No. 101398/2019

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case