Petitioner who is the sole accused in C.R. No.294/2006 of Kumbla Police Station for an offence punishable under Secs.8(1) and 8(2) of the Abkari Act for allegedly having been found in possession of 240 litres of Karnataka arrack in 2400 packets on 19.10.2006 and who was also arrested on the same day, seeks his enlargement on bail.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that no final report has been filed even after 60 days of judicial custody of the petitioner. If so, by virtue of the proviso to sec.167(2) Cr.P.C. the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail as of right.

3. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the J.F.C.M.-I, Kasaragod and subject to the following conditions:-

1. Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays.

2. Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.

3. The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.

4. Petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

If the petitioner commits breach of any of the above conditions, the bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled. This application is allowed as above.

4. It has come to the notice of this court that in cases where large quantities of potable rectified spirit or other contraband liquor are seized by the police or excise officials, final reports are not seen filed within the statutory period specified by the proviso to sec.167(2) Cr.P.C. The inevitable result is that the accused in judicial custody will have to be necessarily enlarged on bail since he has a right to bail on account of the investigating agency not filing the final report after concluding the investigation within time. Noticing this increasing incidence of final reports not being filed within time in cases of the above nature, the learned Public Prosecutor was requested to find out whether such lapses were purely accidental or deliberate. After instructions the Public Prosecutor submitted that the failure to file final reports was not deliberate and that the reason for the inability of the investigating officer to file the final report was the inordinate delay in getting the certificate of chemical analysis from the Government chemical examiner's laboratories. The Public Prosecutor also conveyed the grievance of the investigating officers that many of the magistrates do not accept final reports which are not accompanied by the certificate of chemical analysis for the reason that such final reports are incomplete.

5. The above attitude of the Excise and Police Officials conducting the investigation as also of the magistracy in refusing to accept the final report, if true, deserves to be deprecated. Those in charge of administration of justice cannot be insensitive to the realities of life. Considering the alarmingly escalating offences relating to narcotic drugs and other intoxicating substances and the limited number of Government Chemical Examiners' laboratories in the State, it may be difficult for such laboratories to promptly cater to the needs of the investigating agencies. But the consequential delay in getting the certificates of analysis need not deter the investigating officers from submitting the final reports before the courts concerned. Taking a strictly legalistic view, the olfactory and gustatory senses of even experienced officers to identify liquor through smell and taste may not be enough for a court of law to conclude that the seized liquid is liquor. In the absence of a report from the Public Analyst, it would not be safe to rely on the smell alone to find out that the liquid contained in a bottle or jerry can is liquor within the meaning of the Abkar