The prosecution must prove the alleged offence beyond all reasonable doubt, and the timely production of property before the court is essential. Proper custody and handling of seized samples and contraband articles are crucial, and any delay must be adequately explained.

1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.56/00 of the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ad hoc)-I, Kollam, and in this appeal he challenges the judgment dated 10.6.2005 in the above sessions case by which he is convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act.

2. The prosecution case is that on 17.11.1998 at about 6 p.m. the accused was found in possession of 1.5 ltrs. of arrack for sale in a black cannas, on the northern side of the Thottuvarampa of Polachira in Thazham thekku muri of Chirakkara village and hence the accused has committed the offence punishable under Sections 55(a) and (i) of the Abkari Act. On the above allegation, Crime No.325/98 was registered in the Chathannur Police Station.

3. On completing the investigation in the above crime, a report was filed in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-Paravur, based upon which C.P.No.101/98 was instituted and subsequently by order dated 30.9.1999, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions court wherein S.C.No.56/00 was instituted and thereafter eventually transferred the case to the present court for trial and disposal. Thus when the accused appeared, after perusal of the prosecution materials and hearing the prosecution as well as the defence, a formal charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, which when read over and explained to the accused, he denied the same and pleaded not guilty, pursuant to which the prosecution adduced its evidence by examining Pws.1 to 4 and by producing Exts.P1 to P6 documents. M.O.1 can is also identified as material object. The memorandum of evidence in the present case consists of the defence evidence as well, including the testimony of Dws.1 to 4. The trial court finally found that it is beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was found in possession of arrack as alleged by the prosecution and accordingly he is found guilty under section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and consequently he is convicted thereunder. On such conviction, the appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh and in case of default of payment of fine, the appellant/accused is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. Set off is allowed under section 428 of Cr.P.C. Challenging the above finding and order of conviction and sentence, the accused in the above sessions case preferred this appeal.

4. I have heard Adv.Sri.Prathapchandran Pillai, the learned counsel for the appellant and Adv.Sri.N.Suresh, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

5. Though altogether 4 witnesses were examined from the side of the prosecution, only Pws.3 and 4 supported the case of the prosecution, who are official witnesses, and the independent witnesses who were examined as Pws.1 and 2, turned hostile to the prosecution. Thus when Pws.3 and 4 were examined, they have deposed strictly in terms of the allegation of the prosecution. According to Pws.3 and 4, they reached on the northern side of the Thottuvarampa of Polachira in Thazham thekku muri of Chirakkara village at about 6 p.m. on 17.11.1998, during which, the accused found carrying a black cannas and on entertaining doubt, when the accused was called, he tried to escape but he was intercepted by the police party and on inspection of the cannas, which was possessed by the accused, they found some liquid in the cannas which was identified as arrack by smelling and tasting and accordingly the accused was arrested then and there, and the contraband article was seized and samples were drawn from the contraband article that contained in the cannas. According to Pws.3 and 4, the entire proceedings were elaborately recorded in a mahazar prepared at the spot and the arrest of the accused also mentioned therein. According to Pws.3 and 4, on completing the entire proceedings, they were returned to the Police Station and there