K. Thankappan, J.

1. The appellant, the accused in SC No. 351/1999 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge Fast Track (Ad hoc I), Kozhikode, faced trial for an offence punishable under S.55(a) of the Abkari Act on the allegation that he was found in possession of one litre of arrack on 16/08/1997 at a place called Kothankal. To prove the case against the appellant, prosecution examined six witnesses and relied on Exts. P1 to P9. MO 1 black cannas was also produced. After closing the prosecution evidence, the appellant was questioned under S.313 of the Code. He denied the prosecution charge and had stated that he is innocent. The Trial Court relied on the evidence of PWs 3 to 5, the official witnesses, and Ext. P8 chemical report and found the appellant guilty under S.55(a) of the Abkari Act and convicted him thereunder and sentenced to undergo R.I for two years and a fine of Rs.One lakh with default sentence of payment of fine to undergo S.I for a further period of nine months. Benefits under S.428 of CrPC was also allowed. The judgment of the Trial Court is challenged in this appeal.

2. This Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in detail and the Public Prosecutor. The following contentions are taken before this Court for challenging the judgment of the Trial Court. Firstly, it is contended that finding of the Court that the appellant had committed an offence punishable under S.55(a) of the Abkari Act is not legally sustainable in the light of the judgments reported in Surendran v. Excise Inspector, 2004 KHC 72 : 2004 (1) KLT 404 and Sudephan @ Aniyan v. State of Kerala, 2005 KHC 2088 : 2006 (1) KLT SN 72 : 2005 (2) KLD (Cri) 631 as the prosecution failed to prove that the contraband was seized from the appellant in connection with any export, transport or transit of the contraband. Secondly, it is contended by the counsel that evidence of PWs 3 to 5 cannot be accepted for finding the appellant guilty of the offence as the evidence of these official witnesses has not been corroborated with any independent witnesses. Thirdly, it is contended that PWs 3 and 4, the two official witnesses, who detected the crime and investigated the offence did not comply with the provisions of the Abkari Act as they have not given evidence before the Court that the contraband and the sample were produced before the Court in time and without any unnecessary delay so as to rule out the chances of substitution of the same. Lastly, it is contended that the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 would not show that they have complied with the provisions regarding seizure of the contraband article, taking of the sample and sealing and labelling of the same as per the procedure prescribed under the provisions of Kerala Excise Manual as there was no evidence before the Court that the contraband and the sample were produced before the Court where seal and label were got identified at the place of the seizure. With regard to the first contention, the prosecution case itself is that the appellant was found coming with MO 1 cannas along the road when PW 3 and other excise officials were on patrol duty on the day of the incident and on seeing the excise party, the appellant wants to hide MO 1. However, the appellant was stopped and questioned by PW 3 and it was found that the appellant was found in possession of one litre of arrack in a five litre cannas and there was no evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that the appellant possessed MO 1 in connection with any transport or transit of the same. If so, as per the principles laid down by this Court, possession simplicitor of any liquor will not attract S.55(a) of the Abkari Act as held by this Court in Surendran's case as well as in Sudephan's case (cited supra). In the above two judgments, this Court had categorically held that to attract an offence under S.55(a) of the Act, the prosecution should allege and establish that the contraband was found in possession of the