The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Accurate and detailed documentation is crucial in cases involving contraband items.

The sole accused who stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 8(1)(2) of the Abkari Act is the appellant herein.

2. The allegation of the prosecution is that on 05.07.2007, while the Excise Inspector, Udumpanchola was on patrol duty, they came across the accused carrying a 5 litre can. He was intercepted and inspection revealed that the can contained illicit arrack. After drawing samples, the process of labelling and sealing were done. Thereafter, the accused was produced before the magistrate and investigation followed. At the end of investigation, final report was laid. The accused faced trial before the learned Sessions Judge. On the side of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exts.P1 to P9 were marked. MO1 was identified. The court below on an evaluation of the available inputs found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. This is challenged by the accused in this appeal.

3. Heard both sides and examined the records.

4. The prosecution is essentially relying on the oral testimony of PW1, the Detecting Officer, supported by the contemporaneous documents which are Ext.P1, P2 and P3. PW2 and PW3 were projected as independent witnesses. However, at the time of trial, they turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. In fact, PW2 denied the signature in Ext.P1 seizure mahazar. Though PW3 admitted his signature, did not support the prosecution case.

5. Ext.P1 contains the essential details of interception, arrest, sampling, sealing and labelling of the contraband and the samples. It is stated that the sample which was drawn along with the contraband was produced before the learned magistrate on the next day itself. This is seen endorsed on the property list marked as Ext.P8. By Ext.P9 original of the forwarding note, the sample was forwarded to the chemical analysis lab. Ext.P5 is the chemical analysis report which indicates that the sample was found to contain Ethyl Alcohol. Ext.P4 is the crime and occurrence report registered at the excise office. Available materials indicate that the samples which were allegedly drawn at the spot reached the Court on the next day itself without considerable delay, from where it was forwarded to the chemical analysis lab. The endorsement of the chemical analysis lab also indicates that it reached without tampering and the seal in tact. There is nothing to show that there was any interpolation in the interregnum.

Learned Public Prosecutor relying on the above materials vehemently contended that the prosecution had succeeded in proving that the offence alleged against the accused is proved, though, learned counsel for the accused citing various authorities and alleging infirmities in the evidence adduced, contended that the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt.

6. Learned counsel for the accused, relying on the various provisions in Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 specifically referring to Rule 8, contended that there was an infraction of the various provisions and the procedures contemplated therein. Learned counsel contended that regarding the process of sampling, the Rules were not complied with. It was further contended that the sampling, labelling and the process of drawing sample were in total violation of Rule 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor contended that the above Rules have no application to the facts of the case since Rules are meant for inspection and search of licensed IMFL and toddy shops. It was contended that it has no application to the facts of the case wherein the search and seizure of an individual was involved.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor was justified in his contention of this aspect. However, learned counsel for the accused contended that in the absence of any specific provision in the Abkari Act, which provides for the procedure to be followed while dra