3.1. Precedents Cited

The appellees relied heavily on three key judgments from this court: Gopalan v. State of Kerala (Crl.A No. 47 of 2006), Ashokan v. State of Kerala (2016 KHC 3285), and Biju v. State of Kerala (2017 (2) KLT 325). In these cases, the court had previously held that non-compliance with procedural rules outlined in the Excise Manual could render a conviction invalid, emphasizing the mandatory nature of such procedural lapses.

However, in T.A. Santhosh, the court revisited these precedents and distinguished them based on the statutory authority of the rules cited. It was clarified that only rules issued under a statute possess binding legal force. The infringing cases mistakenly treated administrative manual instructions as statutory provisions, thus rendering their acquittals per incuriam.

Additionally, the court referred to several Supreme Court decisions, including Mammo v. State of Kerala (1979 KLT 801) and Thankappan v. State of Kerala (AIR 1996 Crl LJ 1754), which reinforced the principle that administrative instructions do not hold the same legal weight as statutory provisions. These precedents were pivotal in establishing that non-compliance with administrative manuals cannot automatically justify an acquittal.

3.2. Legal Reasoning

The core legal reasoning in this judgment revolves around the distinction between statutory provisions and administrative instructions. The court emphasized that for a procedural requirement to have legal standing in a criminal case, it must derive its authority from a statute. In this context, the Kerala Excise Manual's Volume II, which contains administrative guidelines, does not have statutory authority under the Abkari Act. Therefore, procedural lapses based on these administrative instructions are not grounds for acquittal unless they result in tangible prejudice to the accused.

The court further analyzed the nature of the Abkari Act, highlighting that Section 53A pertains to the disposal of seized liquor and does not impose specific sample collection requirements. The court criticized the lower courts' misinterpretation of the Excise Manual as having mandatory statutory force, categorizing such decisions as per incuriam.

On the matter of delays in investigation, the court acknowledged the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21. However, it delineated that not all delays amount to a violation of this right. Specifically, delays that do not prejudice the accused or indicate malafide intentions of the investigating agency are not sufficient to invalidate the prosecution.

Crucially, the court concluded that the appellants were in conscious possession of the contraband, supported by consistent evidence and testimonial corroboration. The presumption under Section 64 of the Abkari Act further reinforced the conviction, as the appellants failed to satisfactorily account for the contraband's presence in their vehicle.

3.3. Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future cases under the Abkari Act and similar legislations. It establishes a clear precedent that administrative manuals, unless explicitly empowered by statute, do not hold binding legal authority in criminal proceedings. This delineation safeguards the prosecution from being undermined by procedural technicalities that lack statutory backing.

Furthermore, the judgment clarifies the application of the right to a speedy trial, indicating that delays alone do not constitute a violation unless accompanied by factors suggesting prejudice or prejudice to the accused’s case. This nuanced approach ensures that cases are evaluated on their factual merits rather than procedural delays.

The affirmation of conscious possession as a key element in contraband cases underlines the importance of establishing the accused's knowledge and control over the illicit substance. This reinforces the evidentiary standards required for successful prosecution under the Abkari Act.

4.1. Per Incuriam

Per incuriam is a Latin term meaning "through lack of care." In legal contexts, it refers to a judgment delivered without consideration of a relevant legal principle or precedent. Such judgments are considered to be made in error and can be subject to reversal or overruling in future cases.

4.2. Conscious Possession

Conscious possession refers to an individual’s awareness and control over a particular item, especially contraband or illicit substances. In legal terms, establishing conscious possession involves demonstrating that the accused knew about the presence of the contraband and had control over it. This is crucial in cases where the possession is not overtly obvious.

4.3. Section 64 of the Abkari Act

Section 64 of the Abkari Act creates a legal presumption that an individual in possession of contraband liquor has committed an offense, especially if they fail to provide a satisfactory account of the liquor's presence. This provision shifts the burden of proof to the accused to explain the legitimate ownership or possession of the contraband.