The sufficiency of evidence and the integrity of seized samples and material objects are crucial in proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.

1. Challenging the conviction and sentence under Section 55 (g) of the Abkari Act, imposed on the accused by judgment dated 23.07.2003 in S.C.No.611 of 1999 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Kasaragod, the accused therein preferred this appeal.

2. The prosecution case is that: on 07.07.1998 at 1.15 p.m., the accused was found in possession of 10 litres of wash kept for the preparation of illicit arrack in an aluminium pot near the residential house of the accused at Cherumbachal in Kallar village against the provisions of the Abkari Act. Thus according to the prosecution, the accused, who is a lady, committed an offence punishable under Section 55 (g) of the Abkari Act.

3. During the trial of the case, PWs 1 to 3 were examined from the side of the prosecution and Exhibits P1 to P5 documents were produced and marked. MO1 aluminium pot was identified and marked as material object. The prosecution adduced the above evidence since the accused denied the charge for the offence under Section 55 (g) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The learned Judge of the trial court finally found that no inherent improbability or material contradiction or striking discrepancy is brought out in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against the accused and consequently the learned Judge accepted prosecution case as established and accordingly found that the accused is guilty under Section 55 (g) of the Kerala Abkari Act. Accordingly she is convicted thereunder. On such conviction, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default she is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. Set off is allowed. The above findings and order of conviction and sentence are challenged in this appeal.

4. I have heard Adv.Sri. M. Ramesh Chander, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.N. Suresh, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

5. In order to establish the prosecution allegation in the present case, the prosecution has examined only three witnesses and produced five documents. Out of the three witnesses, except PW3, the Sub Inspector of Police who detected the crime, effected the seizure, conducted the investigation and laid the charge, the other two witnesses are independent, but they turned hostile to the prosecution. Thus, when PW3 was examined, he deposed that on getting information about the sale of illicit arrack in the house of the accused, he proceeded to the house of the accused in a private jeep driven by PW1 and he conducted search in the house of the accused but no contraband article was recovered from the said house. But according to him he detected an aluminum pot near to a cement jar within three metres to the south of the residential house of the accused and the said pot contained 10 litres of wash. According to PW3, the said wash was seized and he drew samples and sealed the sample as well as the material objects including aluminum pot and thereafter he returned to the police station wherein he registered the First Information Report in Crime No.161 of 1998 of Rajapuram Police Station. He had also prepared forwarding note for sending the samples for chemical analysis and thus obtained chemical analysis report. Thus when PW3 was examined Exhibit P3 FIR, Exhibit P4 forwarding note and Exhibit P5 chemical analysis report were marked through him. PW3 also identified the aluminum pot as MO1 material object. Though PWs 1 and 2 turned hostile, they admitted their signatures and thus Exhibit P1 seizure mahazar and Exhibit P2 scene mahazar were marked through them respectively. On the basis of the above evidence and materials on record, the trial court found that the appellant/accused is guilty of the offence under Section 55 (g) of the Kerala Abkari Act.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that the trial court is fully incorrect and illegal in convicting the appellant for the offence under Secti