The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc), Mavelikkara, for the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of 1 lakh and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Challenging the conviction and sentence so passed by the court below, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

3. The prosecution case is briefly stated as follows: PW1, the Excise Preventive Officer, Mavelikkara, and his party were on patrol at Thamarakkulam Mekkummuri in Thamarakkulam Village at 5.30 p.m. on 28-04-1998. While so, the appellant was seen coming from the opposite side carrying a 750 ml. bottle, fully containing some liquid, in his right hand. The excise party stopped him there. On examining the contents of the bottle by smelling and tasting, it was revealed that the bottle contained arrack. Therefore, the appellant was arrested then and there. PW1 has taken three samples of 150 ml. each of arrack in three 180 ml. bottles from the bulk of arrack contained in that 750 ml. bottle. 750 ml. bottle as well as three sample bottles were sealed and the sample bottles were marked as A, B and C. The contraband liquor was seized by PW1 under Ext.P1 Seizure Mahazar in the presence of witnesses. Thereafter, PW1 proceeded to the Excise Range Office, Mavelikkara, with the appellant, contraband and the records and produced them before PW4, the Excise Inspector, Mavelikkara. PW4 has registered Crime No.28 of 1998 of that Range Office against the appellant alleging the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. Ext.P2 is the Crime and Occurrence Report thus prepared by PW4. (This document is not signed by PW4. But, his seal is seen affixed below the Report). He has prepared Ext.P3 List of Properties. He has produced the appellant along with Ext.P4 Remand Report and other records before the Magistrate on 29.4.1998. PW5, the Excise Inspector, Mavelikkara, continued the investigation. He has questioned the witnesses and recorded their statements. He has prepared the Final Report and submitted it before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Mavelikkara.

4. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session, Alappuzha, and, from there, it was made over to the Assistant Sessions Court, Mavelikkara. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc), Mavelikkara. The court below framed a charge against the appellant alleging the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty of the charge.

5. The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 5 and marked Exts.P1 to P5 and MO.1 on their side. The appellant was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.. He has denied the incriminating circumstances shown against him. The defence has examined DW1 on its side. The court below, after considering the matter, found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and convicted him thereunder. He was heard on the question of sentence and imposed the sentence on him.

6. The appellant has raised many contentions challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him. It is the case of the prosecution that three samples of 150 ml. each of arrack in three 180 ml. bottles were drawn from MO.1 bottle. Thereafter, MO.1 as well as samples were sealed by PW1. PW4 deposed that out of the three samples so taken, one alone was produced before the court along with the requisition for chemical analysis. The prosecution does not have a case that they have sent the contraband along with the sample after describing them in a Forwarding Note and with a copy of the same to the court for forwarding the sample to the Chemical Examiner for examination. There is no evidence as to whether the sample A or B or C was produ