1. The accused in S.C. No. 291 of 2007 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Kasaragod filed this revision petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act.

2. Heard.

3. The prosecution allegation is that on 7.1.2006 at 6.55 p.m. the revision petitioner was found in possession of 55 packets, each packet having a capacity of 100 ml each, containing Karnataka made arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

4. The revision petitioner was arrested from the spot and the contraband articles were seized by PW1 as per Ext.P2 seizure mahazar.

5. The inventory of the material objects was prepared by PW1 and he handed over the same to the Assistant Excise Inspector. Thereafter, the said inventory was certified by the learned Magistrate. The investigation was conducted by PW3. After completing the investigation, PW3 filed the final report before the court.

6. Before the trial court, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Exts.P1 to P9 were marked for the prosecution. No evidence was adduced on the side of the revision petitioner.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that since the inventory in this case was prepared by an officer, who was not authorised to prepare the inventory, the revision petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt.

8. PW1 was the Sub Inspector of Police, who detected the offence. PW1 stated that after detecting the offence, he seized the contraband as per Ext.P2 mahazar. PW1 also arrested the revision petitioner from the spot. Thereafter, PW1 brought the material objects and the revision petitioner to the police station along with contemporary records and thereafter, the crime was registered. The further evidence of PW1 is that he prepared the inventory and forwarded the same to the Assistant Excise Commissioner. Ext.P7(a) is the inventory prepared by PW1. Ext.P7(b) is the photograph and Ext.P7(c) is the Negative of the photograph. It is to be noted that Ext.P7(b) does not appear to be the photograph of the contraband seized. What is seen from Ext.P7(b) is the photograph of a plastic bag containing some article inside it. Ext.P7(a) would show that the inventory was prepared by PW1, the Sub Inspector of Police, Badiaka Police Station on 8.1.2006. The evidence of PW1 would also show that he prepared the inventory in this case. It appears from Ext.P7 (a) that the Assistant Excise Inspector had signed the inventory. The date on which the inventory was signed by the Assistant Excise Inspector is not shown in Ext.P7(a). It is not discernible as to why the date on which the Assistant Excise Commissioner put his signature in Ext.P7(a) inventory was not shown in Ext.P7(a). The final report in this case was filed on 7.11.2006 after completing the investigation. It is very relevant to note that the contraband articles were certified by the jurisdictional Magistrate only on 25.11.2006, which was subsequent to the filing of the final report. It is not discernible as to why there was inordinate delay in making application to the learned Magistrate for certification. No explanation had been given by the prosecution as to why the application was not submitted to the learned Magistrate for certifying the correctness of the inventory immediately after preparation of the inventory.

9. At this juncture, it is relevant to read Section 53A of the Abkari Act, which is extracted hereunder:-

"53A. Disposal of seized liquor, intoxicating drugs or articles.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the State Government may having regard to the nature of the liquor, intoxicating drug, or article, their vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraints of proper storage space or any other relevant consideration, by notification in the official Gazette, specify such liquor, intoxicating drug or article which shall, as soon as may be after their seizure, be disposed of by the authorised officer referred to in sect