1. The appellant was charge sheeted for an offence punishable under Sections 55(a) and (h) of the Kerala Abkari Act in Crime No.264/2008 of the Nilambur Police Station, which in turn was tried by the Additional Sessions Court (Ad hoc-III), Manjeri in S.C.No.264/2009.

2. The prosecution case is that on 08.05.2008, the appellant was found carrying a plastic Can containing 4½ liters of arrack and he was apprehended by the police. On conclusion of the evidence and after hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Court found the accused guilty and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh. Against the finding of the learned Sessions Court , this appeal is being filed.

3. According to the appellant, in the matter of arrest of the accused, seizure of the contraband articles, sampling of the same etc., none of the mandatory requirements have been complied by the police, and the non-compliance of the statutory requirements make the trial vitiated against the appellant. The contraband articles had reached the court belatedly and no explanation had been offered by the prosecution for the delay in producing the contraband articles before the court. In fact, the official witnesses alone had supported the prosecution case and the Sessions Court ought not to have relied on their evidence so as to convict the appellant. The Sessions Court has not considered the animosity alleged against the detecting officer by the defence. On these grounds, the appellant prays for setting aside the conviction and sentenced passed by the Additional Sessions Court (Ad hoc-III), Manjeri in S.C.No.264/2009 dated 02.01.2010.

4. The prosecution case is that out of the 4 witnesses examined, PW1 is the then Assistant Sub Inspector of police, Nilambur. He was a member of the patrol party under the leadership of PW4, who detected the offence. PW4 is the then Sub Inspector of Police, who was the leader of the said patrol party. On the evening of 08.05.2008, while the police party consisting of PW4 and other police officials including PW1 were patrolling within the limit of Nilambur Police Station in the police jeep. PW4 received reliable information to the effect that somebody has been engaged in the sale of arrack at Thottupoyil-Akampadam amsom. On getting such information, they rushed to the spot along with the investigation kit. At about 5.30 p.m., the police party reached at the road at Thottupoyi. Thereupon, they found the accused walking through the road from Kallunda direction to Thottupoyil direction by carrying a plastic Can of 5 litre capacity. On seeing the police party, the accused attempted to escape. Immediately, PW1 stopped the police jeep and stepped down from the jeep and resisted the accused and questioned him. Thereafter, he verified the content of the Can in the presence of the independent witnesses and the accompanying police officials and he convinced that it was country made arrack and that fact has been convinced to the witnesses also.

5. Thereafter, PW4 duly arrested the accused after preparing Ext.P1 arrest memo. He has also prepared Ext.P2 inspection memo. He has also issued Ext.P5 arrest notice to one Ramakrishnan, son of the brother of the appellant relating to the arrest. The evidence of PWs 1 to 4 would further show that PW4 has collected sample from the content of MO1 Can in a 375 ml. capacity bottle, sealed the same and also sealed the Can containing the residue of the arrack, prepared and obtained the signature of the accused and independent witnesses on the said labels and affixed the same on MO1 Can and also on the sample bottle, duly sealed the sample bottles as well as the Can and seized the same after preparing Ext.P3 seizure mahazar. Both the witnesses have also identified the accused as well as the MO1 Can containing arrack and the label affixed by PW4 before the court. PW3 is an independent witness, who was present at the time of the arrest of the accused, sei