IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU MONDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2007 / 18TH ASHADHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 877 of 1999(X) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 1323/98 IN CC.743/1997 IN CRI. ME NO.14/96 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VAIKOM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA, EXCISE INSPECTOR, KADUTHURUTHY RANGE, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED ----------------- 1. JOMON, VADAKKEVELIYIL VEEDU, KANNANKARA KARA, THANNEERMUKKAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. 2. ANNAMMA CHACKO, PUTHANCHIRA VEEDU, OMALLOOR KARA, KOTHANALLUR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2007, ALONG WITH CRRP NO. 2807 OF 2003 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.R. UDAYABHANU, J. CRL.R.P.NOS. 877/1999 & 2807/2003OF DATED THIS THE 9th July 2007 ORDER The revision petitioner is the Excise Inspector who had initiated proceedings against the respondents under Section 56 (b), 57A(1)iii and 58 B(1)(b) of the Abkari Act on the basis of the analysis report that the sample contained diazepam. The applications filed to have the case withdrawn for presenting before the N.D.P.S.Court(Sessions Court, Thodupuzha) was dismissed by the court below which is taken up in revision herein. 2. On forwarding the second sample, the Joint Chemical Examiner to the Government of Kerala reported that it contained only ethyl alcohol and no diazepam. The contention is that there is no provision to forward the second sample for analysis. I find that it is laid down in the decision in State of Kerala v. Deepak P.Shah, 2001(2)K.L.T.433 that the second sample can be forwarded for analysis. If the report is from a mere competent Laboratory, the same supercedes. In the circumstances, I find that there is nothing illegal in the order of CRL.R.P.NOS.877/1999 &2807 2003 -2- the court below dismissing the application of the revision petitioner. Hence, there is no merit in the revision petition filed by the Excise Inspector and the same is dismissed. K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE ks. CRL.R.P.NOS.877/1999 &2807 2003 -3- K.R.UDAYABHANU, J CRL.R.P.NOS.877/1999 & 2807/2003 ORDER 9-7-2007