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.

Case disposed

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

Abkari Act Section 8(1),(2),55(g)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.The State of Kerala (Excise)

    Adv. Public Prosecutor

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Sam P Thomas @ Moncy

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  3. 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.

  4. 23-Mar-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  5. 21-Mar-2026

    For Hearing

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  6. 19-Mar-2026

    For hearing under section 232 CRPC

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  7. 17-Mar-2026

    Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  8. 13-Mar-2026

    Prays time

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  9. 12-Mar-2026

    Further evidence

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  10. 25-Feb-2026

    Call on

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  11. 24-Feb-2026

    Call on

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  12. 21-Feb-2026

    Await report

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  13. 28-Jan-2026

    Call on

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  14. 16-Dec-2025

    Call on

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  15. 27-Nov-2025

    Call on

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  16. 26-Sep-2025

    Await Mos

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  17. 30-Jul-2025

    Await Mos

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  18. 23-Jun-2025

    For reports

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  19. 02-Jun-2025

    For framing charge

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  20. 14-Mar-2025

    For framing charge

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  21. 06-Jan-2025

    For framing charge

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  22. 16-Oct-2024

    For framing charge

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  23. 05-Aug-2024

    No sitting notified

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  24. 10-Jun-2024

    For framing charge

    Subjudge,thiruvalla

  25. 03-Apr-2024

    For Hearing

    Sub Judge, Thiruvalla

  26. 12-Feb-2024

    Issue summonsed to accused

    Sub Judge, Thiruvalla

  27. 11-Dec-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  28. 07-Oct-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 200690/2023

casestatus.in Summary

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

Search Another Case