K. Ramakrishnan, J.

1. The accused in SC No. 941/2000 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court for the trial of Abkari Act Cases, Neyyattinkara is the appellant herein. The appellant was charge-sheeted by the Excise Inspector, Thirupuram Excise Range in Crime No. 48/1998 under Section 58 of the Abkari Act (it could be only a mistake as it ought to be under Section 8(1) read with Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act). The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that on 24/09/1998, at about 2 p.m, the appellant was found to be in possession of 7 litres of arrack in MO 1 cannas and found transiting the same along the western side of Kulathoor-Uchakkada road in front of Uchakkada Roman Catholic Church, Kulathoor in violation of the provisions of the Abkari Act and thereby by she had committed the offence mentioned above.

2. After investigation, final report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-ll, Neyyattinkara and the learned Magistrate had committed the case to Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram as per order in CP No. 16/2000 under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). After committal, the Sessions Court took cognizance of the case as SC No. 941/2000 and made over the case to the Additional Sessions Court for trial of Abkari Cases, Neyyattinkara for disposal.

3. When the appellant appeared before the Court below, after hearing both sides, charge under Section 58 of the Abkari Act was framed against her and the same was read over and explained to her and she pleaded not guilty. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exts. P1 to P6 and MO1 were marked on their side. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of the Code and she denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against her in the prosecution evidence. She had further stated that she had not committed any offence and she has been falsely implicated in the case. Since the evidence in this case did not warrant an acquittal under Section 232 of the Code, the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the appellant to enter on her defence, but no defence evidence was adduced on her side. After considering the evidence on record, the Court below found the appellant guilty under Section 58 of the Abkari Act and convicted her thereunder and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. One lakh, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused before the Court below.

4. Heard Sri. C. Rajendran, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Jibu P. Thomas, Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

5. Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no spot sample taken and there is no evidence to show that chemical analysis report relates to the representative sample taken from the contraband article alleged to have been seized from the possession of the appellant. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was found to be in possession of illicit arrack. Further, there is contradiction in the quantity seized as mentioned in the seizure mahazer and also in the final report filed. That also gives suspicion regarding genuineness of the prosecution case. He had also argued that independent witnesses turned hostile and the Court below was not justified in relying on the official witnesses alone to convict the appellant and he had relied on the decision reported in Sasidharan v. State of Kerala, 2007 KHC 3404 : 2007 (1) KLT 720 in support of his case.

6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor argued that in this case there was no delay in producing the article and in fact, the property clerk, who had taken the sample was examined before Court and he had narrated the procedure followed in