1. The petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.217/2016 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta.

2. The prosecution allegation is that on 28.10.2000 at 7.10 p.m., the petitioner was found in possession of 1½ litres of arrack in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act. Crime No.285/2000 of Ranni Police Station was registered under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act in connection with the above incident. After completing the investigation, the final report was filed before the court for the offence under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. After commitment, the case is presently pending as S.C.No.217/2016 before the court below.

3. The petitioner has filed this application praying for quashing Annexure-2 final report and further proceedings against petitioner in the above case.

4. Heard.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since there was inordinate delay of nearly 5 years in producing the contraband and the samples before the court, no successful prosecution against the petitioner can be sustained and consequently, Annexure-A2 final report and further proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.

6. The incident in this case was on 28.10.2000 at 7.10 p.m. Annexure-A3 certified copy of the property list would show that the contraband articles were received in the court only on 10.08.2005. This court called for the copy of the relevant page of the thondi register of the Magistrate Court concerned relating to the entry of the contraband in this case. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate transmitted the photocopy of the relevant page of the thondi register having the entry regarding the receipt of the above contraband before the court, which would show that the entry with regard to the receipt of the contraband articles in this case was made in the thondi register on 19.08.2005, even though the same was received by the court on 10.08.2005. It further appears from the copy of the said thondi register that the samples were also produced before the court along with the contraband articles on 10.08.2005.

7. The final report was filed on 29.11.2000. In the final report, it is stated that the contraband article and the samples were already produced before the court along with a forwarding note. However, Annexure-A3 copy of the property list would show that the samples and the contraband article were produced before the court only on 10.08.2005, which was nearly after five years after the date of seizure of the contraband and after the filing of the final report before the court.

8. Now the question to be considered is as to whether this court will be justified in quashing the final report and further proceedings against the petitioner due to the above said delay. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the delay can be explained only in the course of trial.

9. I may now consider as to whether there is any scope for explaining the reason for the delay in producing the contraband and the samples before the court, at the time of trial. A report dated 21.01.2017 was filed before this court by the Inspector of Police, Ranni, who is the Station House Officer of Ranni Police Station. It is stated in the said report that the seized articles were kept in the Ranni Police Station ever since the registration of the case. It is further stated in the said report that an undue delay occurred in sending the seized articles to the court. It is also stated in the report that the seized articles were produced before the court only on 10.08.2005 and that itself, after the direction by the court below. From the endorcement in the final report that the contraband and the samples had been already produced before the court, it has to be interfered that the Investigating Officer was of the belief that the samples and the contraband had been already sent to the court. The Inspector of Police, Ranny also reported that there was undue delay in sending the seized articles to the court. In view of the