The State of Kerala (Excise) vs Sam P Thomas @ Moncy — 200690/2023
Case under Abkari Act Section 8(1),(2),55(g). Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED on 25th March 2026.
SC - SESSIONS CASE
CNR: KLPT120002992023
Filing Number
107/2023
Filing Date
07-Oct-2023
Registration No
200690/2023
Registration Date
12-Oct-2023
Court
Sub Court, Thiruvalla
Judge
1-Subjudge,thiruvalla
Decision Date
25-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--AQUITTED
Last updated 30-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
36
Police Station
Mallappally Excise Range Office
Year
2020
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.The State of Kerala (Excise)
Adv. Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
-
1.Sam P Thomas @ Moncy
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
25-Mar-2026
Disposed
Subjudge,thiruvalla
-
23-Mar-2026
JudgementView PDF
CASE SUMMARY: Sessions Case 690/2023 The Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted Sam P Thomas of charges under Sections 8(2) and 55(g) of the Abkari Act (illegal distillation and possession of arrack/wash). Although excise officers discovered distilling equipment and liquids at a house on 09.04.2020, the court found the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence due to critical procedural lapses: the accused was not arrested at the scene, independent witnesses denied witnessing the incident or signing the mahazar, the specimen seal of the detecting officer was not produced before court, the forwarding note lacked the name of the officer who transported samples to the laboratory, and material objects were destroyed in a flood without proper compliance with Section 53A of the Abkari Act. The court emphasized that identity cannot rest merely on documentary assertions and applied strict scrutiny given the reverse onus provisions in the statute. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
23-Mar-2026
Order/ Judgement
Subjudge,thiruvalla
-
21-Mar-2026
For Hearing
Subjudge,thiruvalla
-
19-Mar-2026
For hearing under section 232 CRPC
Subjudge,thiruvalla
-
17-Mar-2026
Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC
Subjudge,thiruvalla
-
13-Mar-2026
Prays time
Subjudge,thiruvalla
-
12-Mar-2026
Further evidence
Subjudge,thiruvalla
-
25-Feb-2026
Call on
Subjudge,thiruvalla
-
24-Feb-2026
Call on
Subjudge,thiruvalla
-
21-Feb-2026
Await report
Subjudge,thiruvalla
-
28-Jan-2026
Call on
Subjudge,thiruvalla
-
16-Dec-2025
Call on
Subjudge,thiruvalla
-
27-Nov-2025
Call on
Subjudge,thiruvalla
-
26-Sep-2025
Await Mos
Subjudge,thiruvalla
-
30-Jul-2025
Await Mos
Subjudge,thiruvalla
-
23-Jun-2025
For reports
Subjudge,thiruvalla
-
02-Jun-2025
For framing charge
Subjudge,thiruvalla
-
14-Mar-2025
For framing charge
Subjudge,thiruvalla
-
06-Jan-2025
For framing charge
Subjudge,thiruvalla
-
16-Oct-2024
For framing charge
Subjudge,thiruvalla
-
05-Aug-2024
No sitting notified
Subjudge,thiruvalla
-
10-Jun-2024
For framing charge
Subjudge,thiruvalla
-
03-Apr-2024
For Hearing
Sub Judge, Thiruvalla
-
12-Feb-2024
Issue summonsed to accused
Sub Judge, Thiruvalla
-
11-Dec-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-Oct-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 200690/2023
CASE SUMMARY: Sessions Case 690/2023 The Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted Sam P Thomas of charges under Sections 8(2) and 55(g) of the Abkari Act (illegal distillation and possession of arrack/wash). Although excise officers discovered distilling equipment and liquids at a house on 09.04.2020, the court found the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence due to critical procedural lapses: the accused was not arrested at the scene, independent witnesses denied witnessing the incident or signing the mahazar, the specimen seal of the detecting officer was not produced before court, the forwarding note lacked the name of the officer who transported samples to the laboratory, and material objects were destroyed in a flood without proper compliance with Section 53A of the Abkari Act. The court emphasized that identity cannot rest merely on documentary assertions and applied strict scrutiny given the reverse onus provisions in the statute. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts