The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for the prosecution to establish the link evidence to show that the seized materials had reached the chemical analyst for examination, and the importance of timely reporting and production of contraband articles, as well as proper sealing and documentation.

The sole accused in S.C.No.173/2004 on the file of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Alappuzha who stands convicted under section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months, has come up in revision.

2. The case of the prosecution, tersely, is as follows:-

Based on reliable information, the Circle Inspector of Police, Kayamkulam searched the house of the petitioner on 27.12.2002 at about 7.45 p.m after complying with all formalities. A black can of 10 litres capacity containing arrack was detected. The contraband articles, some bottles and a glass found nearby were seized as per Ext.P1 mahazar. The petitioner was duly arrested and Crime No.713/2002 was registered. Investigation was conducted by PW7, and he laid charge before the court under section 55(a) of the Abkari Act.

3. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. Exts.P1 to P 13 were marked. MO' s 1 to 3 were produced and identified. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on an evaluation of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case and convicted the petitioner under section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. Challenge raised by the petitioner against the conviction and sentence before the Court of Sessions resulted was repelled. The above concurrent findings are under challenge in this Criminal Revision.

4. I have heard Shri.A.Shafeek, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel, at the outset, submitted that the petitioner was aged 55 years when the offence was detected and was a watch repairer by profession. He also submitted that the petitioner is partially paralyzed and produced a certificate evidencing the same. According to the learned counsel, though the contraband articles were detected from his house, there were other inmates and this aspect was suppressed by the detecting officer and ignored by the courts below. It was finally urged by the learned counsel by placing reliance on various precedents that conviction entered cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the seizure of the contraband as well as the seizure was not forthwith reported before the learned magistrate and the undue delay in producing the contraband before court without offering a proper explanation for the same warranted an acquittal. According to the learned counsel judgment reported in Ravi Vs. State of Kerala [2011 (3) KLT 353] and Raju Vs. State of Kerala [2012 (2) KLD 912] applies to the facts and circumstances.

6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended the records would reveal that Ext.P1 mahazar as well as Ext.P7 First Information Report had reached the court on the next day of seizure and this would prove that there is no falsity in the case of the prosecution. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the evidence let in by the prosecution was consistent and the same was appreciated by the trial court as well as the appellate court and a concurrent finding of guilt was arrived at against the petitioner. It is the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that interference in revision was unwarranted.

7. The only question before this court is whether the concurrent findings entered into by the courts below warrants interference in revision.

8. Though re-appreciation of the evidence is not warranted while exercising revisional jurisdiction, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fervently requested this court to analyse the materials minutely to appreciate his contention that conviction was wrongly entered into against the petitioner.

9. The evidence let in would reveal that the Circle Inspector of Police, Kayamkulam who was examined as PW7, received information that on 27.12.2002 at 7.45 p.m., the petitioner was dealing with in illicit arrack from his house. O