1. The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge Adhoc-II, Thalassery, for the offence punishable under section 55(a) of Abkari Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as fine.

2. The case was detected on 19.06.2001 at about 4.00 pm at a place called Muthathi, in front of Yasodha Rice and Flour Mills. PW2, the Assistant Excise Inspector and his party were on patrol duty at Paravathattu-Mukkoot road. The appellant was found carrying 4 litres of country made illicit arrack in a black plastic can of 5 litre capacity. He was intercepted and the plastic can was examined. It was found to contain 4 litres of illicit arrack. The sample of 250 ml was taken in a bottle of 375 ml. The plastic can containing the residue was also packed, sealed and labelled. The accused was arrested then and there, for which arrest memo was prepared. When the sample was analysed by the Chemical Examiner it was found to contain 33.65 percent by volume of ethyl alcohol. After conducting investigation, charge sheet was laid by the Excise Inspector.

3. PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P5 were marked. The black can containing the residue of liquid was marked as M.O.1.

4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge placed reliance on the evidence given by PW2, the officer who detected this case. PW1, the independent witness did not support the case. PW3 is the person who conducted the investigation and laid the charge sheet. Accepting the case of the prosecution, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.

5. Arguments were initially addressed so vehemently that the records were not produced and seizure was not reported to the court immediately and so on that ground itself the prosecution must fail. Exhibit P1 is the seizure mahazar which contains even the minutest details regarding the arrest of the accused and the seizure of the contraband and the way in which the samples were taken, sealed and labelled. PW2, the Assistant Excise Inspector is the author of that document, who signed it on 19.6.2001. The offence was detected at 4.00 pm on that date. The seizure mahazar was seen by the learned Magistrate on the very same day at 6.45 pm as can be seen on the dated initial put by the learned Magistrate on Exhibit P3 Crime Report. Exhibit P2, the arrest memo shows that the signature and thumb impression of the accused and the signatures of the witnesses were obtained which also was seen by the learned Magistrate on the very same day, i.e, on 19.6.2001, when the accused was produced before the Magistrate. Exhibit P3 is the FIR which shows that the accused and the records were produced before the learned Magistrate at 6.45 pm on that day. In Exhibit P4 also the description of the contraband articles and the sealed sample bottle were specifically mentioned. Even the forwarding note Exhibit P4 was produced before the learned Magistrate along with Exhibit P1 to P3 on the very same day. Therefore, Exhibit P1 to P4 will leave no doubt that the seizure was reported promptly and properly on the very same day within about 2 hours 45 minutes of the detection of the offence.

6. In Exhibit P1 it was specifically mentioned that on the plastic can containing the remaining part of liquor and also on the sample bottle of 375 ml in which 250 ml was taken as sample, the labels containing the signatures of the accused and the witnesses including PW2 were affixed. PW2 has given evidence that on MO1 the contraband article, which was identified and marked before the court below, label containing the signatures of the accused and the witnesses and of PW2 was still there and that similar label was affixed on the sample bottle also. The evidence that MO1 contained such a label affixed as spoken to by PW2 was not challenged by the defence. Therefore, that also is an added circumstance to hold that the evidence regarding the arrest of the accused and the seizure of the contraband from the po