1. This Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24-01-2005 passed in S.C.No.78 of 2002 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional District Judge found accused-Venkataiah guilty for the offence under Section 37(a) of A.P. Excise Act and convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is :-The appellant was a licencee of TFT shop at Laxminarayanapur as on 24.12.2001. Pw-3-N.Mallesham, Prohibition & Excise Inspector inspected the toddy shop of the appellant on 24.12.2001 at about 2.30 P.M. He tested toddy and his test revealed the presence of Chloral Hydrate in toddy. He collected three samples of toddy in the presence of Pws.1 and 2 under cover of panchanama. After collecting the samples, he destroyed the stocks of toddy found in the shop. The appellant-accused also signed on the panchanama. Pw-3 produced the accused along with the samples and panchanama before the Station House Officer, Excise Police Station, Tandur. Pw-4-Madhusudhan Reddy, S.I of Police (Prohibition & Excise), Tandur, received the panchanama along with the samples and registered a case in Crime No.433 of 2001-02 under Section 37(a) of A.P.Excise Act and issued Ex.P-2 Crime Occurrence Report. He submitted requisition to the Court to send the sample to the Chemical Examiner. Ex.P-3 is the report submitted by the Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory. As per the report, the sample is fermented toddy adulterated with chloral hydrate. The accused submitted requisition to send the 2nd sample to the State Food Laboratory. Accordingly, the 2nd sample came to be sent to the State Food Laboratory, Hyderabad. Pw-5-Sundareshwara Rao stested the sample and submitted Ex.P-4 report. As per Ex.P-4 report, the sample contains Chloral Hydrate, Diazepam and Saccharine and it does not conform to alcohol content and therefore, it has been branded as adulterated. After completing investigation, Pw-6-R.Srinivasulu filed charge sheet in the designated Court under the provisions of the N.D.P.S.Act.

3. The learned I Additional District Judge took the charge sheet on file as S.C.No.78 of 2002. On appearance of the accused and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 37(a) of A.P.Excise Act and Section 8 ( c ) read with Section 22 of N.D.P.S. Act, read over the same to the accused for which the appellant/accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To bring home the guilt of the appellant-accused, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses as Pws.1 to 7 and marked seven documents as Exs.P-1 to P-7 and exhibited one material object as M.O-1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, found the appellant-accused guilty for the offence under Section 37(a) of A.P.Excise Act and convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. However, the learned Sessions Judge found appellant-accused not guilty for the offence under Section 8 (c) read with Section 22 of N.D.P.S.Act and acquitted him accordingly. Hence, this appeal by the appellant/accused assailing his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 37(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused submits that there is no assurance that the samples sent for analysis and the samples seized under the cover of Ex.P-1 panchanama are one and the same and in which case, the conviction and sentence of