State of Kerala (Excise) rep by Excise Inspector Adoor vs Saraswathy Advocate - Brijendralal S.P — 200628/2023

Case under Abkari Act Section 8(1),(2),55(g). Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED on 30th March 2026.

Case disposed

SC - SESSIONS CASE

CNR: KLPT120002672023

Filing Number

96/2023

Filing Date

21-Sep-2023

Registration No

200628/2023

Registration Date

29-Sep-2023

Court

Sub Court, Thiruvalla

Judge

1-Subjudge,thiruvalla

Decision Date

30-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--AQUITTED

Last updated 26-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

66

Police Station

Adoor Excise Range Office

Year

2022

Acts & Sections

Abkari Act Section 8(1),(2),55(g)
Crl.mp/1/2026 Classification : Application to Recall Warrant Section SaraswathyState of Kerala (Excise) rep by Excise Inspector Adoor

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Kerala (Excise) rep by Excise Inspector Adoor

    Adv. Public Prosecutor

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Saraswathy Advocate - Brijendralal S.P

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 30-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  3. 26-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Case Summary: State of Kerala v. Saraswathy (SC 628/2023) Court Decision: The accused Saraswathy was acquitted under Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on charges under Sections 8(2) and 55(g) of the Abkari Act (alcohol-related offences). Key Reasoning: The court found critical evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case. While contraband materials (arrack, wash, and distilling implements) were allegedly recovered from a shed at the accused's residence, the prosecution failed to establish the accused's identity or exclusive possession. The only independent witness (PW1) testified he did not witness the alleged incident. Additionally, the court identified procedural failures: the specimen seal of the detecting officer was not produced separately, the forwarding note lacked the messenger's name, samples reached the laboratory 21 days after transmission without explanation, and proper destruction procedures under Section 53A of the Abkari Act were not followed—rendering the chemical analysis report unreliable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 26-Mar-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  5. 25-Mar-2026

    For Hearing

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  6. 24-Mar-2026

    For Hearing

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  7. 23-Mar-2026

    Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  8. 19-Mar-2026

    Further evidence

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  9. 11-Mar-2026

    Issue Summons

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  10. 09-Mar-2026

    Issue Bailable Warrant

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  11. 07-Mar-2026

    Call on

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  12. 26-Feb-2026

    No sitting notified

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  13. 16-Feb-2026

    Adjourned

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  14. 17-Jan-2026

    Await Mos

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  15. 01-Dec-2025

    Issue Bailable Warrant

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  16. 03-Oct-2025

    For framing charge

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  17. 07-Aug-2025

    Call on

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  18. 23-May-2025

    For framing charge

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  19. 04-Mar-2025

    For framing charge

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  20. 17-Dec-2024

    Call on

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  21. 24-Sep-2024

    Call on

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  22. 18-Jul-2024

    For framing of charge

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  23. 29-May-2024

    For framing of charge

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  24. 21-Mar-2024

    For Hearing

    Sub Judge, Thiruvalla

  25. 19-Jan-2024

    For Hearing

    Sub Judge, Thiruvalla

  26. 24-Nov-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  27. 21-Sep-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 200628/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Kerala v. Saraswathy (SC 628/2023) Court Decision: The accused Saraswathy was acquitted under Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on charges under Sections 8(2) and 55(g) of the Abkari Act (alcohol-related offences). Key Reasoning: The court found critical evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case. While contraband materials (arrack, wash, and distilling implements) were allegedly recovered from a shed at the accused's residence, the prosecution failed to establish the accused's identity or exclusive possession. The only independent witness (PW1) testified he did not witness the alleged incident. Additionally, the court identified procedural failures: the specimen seal of the detecting officer was not produced separately, the forwarding note lacked the messenger's name, samples reached the laboratory 21 days after transmission without explanation, and proper destruction procedures under Section 53A of the Abkari Act were not followed—rendering the chemical analysis report unreliable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case