P.D. Rajan,J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the accused against the judgment of conviction and sentence in S.C.No.1939/2001 of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram u/s.8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. The charge against the appellant is that on 17.09.1998 at 12.30 p.m, she was found in possession of 1 litre of arrack in MO1 on the northern side of Alamcode bridge across Amayizhanchan thodu by the Preventive Officer, Excise Range Office, Thiruvananthapuram. She was arrested and the contraband articles were seized, reaching at the Excise Office, registered a crime. After completing investigation, the Excise Inspector, Excise Range, Thiruvananthapuram laid charge before Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thiruvananthapuram. Subsequently, the case was committed to Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram from there it was made over to Additional Sessions Judge.

2. In pursuance of the charge, prosecution examined five witnesses and marked Exts.P1 to P4 as documentary evidence. MO1 was admitted as material object. While questioning the accused, she denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against her. In support of her defence contention DW1 was examined in the trial Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused u/s.8(1) & (2) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and fine of 1 lakh in default imprisonment for six months. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused preferred this appeal.

3. Heard both sides. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to show that articles seized were properly sealed and affixed label on it. There was no forwarding note prepared at the time of sending the sample to the Magistrate therefore it is doubtful whether the very same article was sent to the chemical examination lab.

4. In reply learned Public Prosecutor submitted that all articles seized were properly sealed and affixed seal on the samples. The chemical examination report shows the nature of analysis and indicate the manner in which it was forwarded to the chemical examiner. Therefore a presumption can be drawn that it was properly sealed, labelled and submitted before the chemical examiner with a forwarding note.

5. Now the question is whether mere arrest of the accused with MO1 is sufficient to prove that she was in possession of arrack. The evidence of PW1 shows that he arrived at the place of occurrence on the basis of prior information. According to the Kerala Excise Manual Chapter XXV Rule 24 after seizure of the contraband articles, a mahazar containing necessary particulars should be prepared by the seizing officer. All articles recovered must at once be carefully packed, labelled and sealed in the presence of the witnesses, who shall sign the label affixed to each article. The signatures of the witnesses should be taken from the place of seizure itself and during trial, they should be called upon to prove their signature given in the label. The detecting officer is also bound to prepare mahazar mentioning the details of the articles seized and mention the name of the witnesses present at the time of seizure. The articles seized with mahazar and search list should be produced before the Excise Inspector along with the person arrested. The property seized may be sent to the Excise Range Office having jurisdiction over the scene of occurrence . If sample is not taken from the place of occurrence, the officer depositing articles may take sample in the office of the Excise Inspector. The Excise Inspector of the Range shall affix his seal on the sample so taken.

6. The arrack was seized by PW1, the Preventive Officer, Excise Range Office, Thiruvananthapuram, who deposed that on 17.9.1998 at 12.30 p.m. while he was proceeding through the road by the side of Amayizhanchan thodu, the appellant was found carrying MO1 at Alamcode bridg