1. These petitions arise from similar facts, and are accordingly disposed of by a common order.

2. Petitioner in Crl. R. P. 687/86 is the accused in C. C. 1524/83. while petitioner in Crl. R. P. 688/86 is the accused in C. C. 1525/83 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of Second Class, Ernakulam. Both were charged under S.55 (a) of the Abkari Act. Petitioner in Crl. R. P, 687/86 was found in jeep bearing registration No. K.R.K. 3290 at or about 7.15 a. m. on 5-9-1983 by pws. 2 & 3 Excise Officials. They searched the jeep and recovered 93.26 kgs. of ganja under Ext. P1 mahazar, attested by pw.1 who turned hostile. A sample was sent for chemical analysis, and by Ext. C1 it was reported to be 'ganja'. On the evidence of pws. 2 & 3 and on the basis of Ext. C 1, petitioner was found guilty by Courts below.

3. Petitioner in Crl.R.P. 688/86 was also found in jeep bearing registration No. K.L.O.9734 in front of the Sea Face Tourist Home, Ernakulam (where petitioner in Crl. R. P. 687/86 was also found) at or about 7.15 a.m. on 5-9-1983 by pws. 2 and 3. They recovered 89 kgs. of 'ganja' from the jeep under Ext. P1 mahazar attested by pw. J, who eventually turned hostile. On the evidence of pws. 2 and 3 and on the basis of Ext. Cl, Courts below found the charge.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners challenged the conviction on several grounds. Sample of the article seized on 5-9-1983, was sent for chemical analysis only on 11-4-1985, nineteen months later. In Ext. Cl, there is no mention of any specimen impression of seal, accompanying the sample. The article was produced before the Magistrate only on 26-9-1983, twentyone days after the alleged seizure, and on the same day it was returned to Excise Officials for safe custody, leaving it with them for nineteen months. Referring to these circumstances, counsel submits that there is no guarantee about authenticity of the sample or proof that it was not tampered with. Therefore, result of analysis cannot be relied on, says counsel. To support his contention, be relied on the decision in Piara Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR. 1980 SC 1315). In that case, the sample changed bands many times before it reached the Analyst. The Court found that there was no evidence to show that the sample was not tampered with', a fact which had to be proved affirmatively. The decision in Madan Singh v. State of Rajastan (1979 SCC. (Crl.) 56) was also relied on.

5. It is clear that prosecution paid scant regard to the requirements of the Abkari Act or Excise Manual. S.36 of the Abkari Act reads:

"Searches how to be made - All searches under the provisions of this Act shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898".

(emphasis supplied)

S. 102 (3) of the Code requires that, seizure should be reported to the Magistrate 'forthwith'. It is also necessary to produce the article seized in Court, unless it cannot be conveniently transported. Para.17, 26, 34, 49 and 77 of the Kerala Excise Manual (Volume II-Chapter XXV) also require notice. Para.17 reiterates that searches should be made in conformity with provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Para.26 requires the article seized to be produced before an Excise Inspector within twelve hours. Para.34 states that one sample should be sent to the Magistrate. Para.49 states that reports of search and seizure should reach the Court within 24 hours. Para. 77 reads:

"Whenever contraband liquor or drug is produced in a Court, the Courts may be requested to send samples thereof to the Chemical Examiner, for analysis": (emphasis supplied)

When S.36 of the Abkari Act and Para.17, 26, 34, 49 & 77 in the Manual are read together, as they should be, it is clear that seizure should be reported to the Court 'forthwith', and request made for sending a sample for analysis

6. In practice, as is evident from several instances that have come to our notice, this requirement is systematically honoured by its breach. In this situation. Joint Excise Co