1. The accused in S.C.No.321/2001 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Adhoc-I, Kasaragod is the appellant herein. The appellant was charge sheeted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Vellarikundu Police Station in crime No.68/2000 of that police station under section 55(g) of the Abkari Act.

2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that on 29.4.2000 at about 18.15 p.m the accused was found to be in possession of 50 litres of wash in two aluminium vessels in the court yard of his unnumbered house situated in Pallikochi of Paramba village in violation of the provisions of the Abkari Act and thereby he had committed the offence punishable under section 55(g) of the Abkari Act.

3. After investigation, final report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg, where it was taken on file as C.P.No.130/2000. After complying the formalities, learned Magistrate committed the case to Sessions Court, Kasaragod where it was taken on file as S.C.No.321/2001 after committal. The case was made over to the Assistant Sessions Court, Hosdurg for disposal by the Sessions Judge. Later it was withdrawn and made over to Additional Sessions Court, Adhoc-I, Kasaragod for disposal.

4. When the accused appeared before the court below, after hearing both sides, charge under section 55(g) of the Abkari Act was framed and the same was read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, Pws 1 to 4 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 and Mos 1 and 2 were marked on their side. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Code') and he denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against him in the prosecution evidence. He had further stated that he had not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the case. Since evidence in the case did not warrant an acquittal under section 232 of the Code, accused was called upon to enter on his defence. But no defence evidence was adduced on his side. After considering the evidence on record, the court below found the appellant guilty under section 55(g) of the Abkari Act and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. One lakh, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months more. Set off was allowed or the period of detention already undergone under section 428 of the Code. Aggrieved by the same, the above appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused before the court below.

5. Heard Sri.T.K. Vipindas, counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Jibu P. Thomas, Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

6. Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no acceptable evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution to prove that the accused was in possession of the house or the property from where the alleged contraband articles were seized. The evidence of the village officer is not sufficient to prove his possession. Further though seizure was on 29.4.2000, articles were produced before court on 2.5.2000 and there is no explanation forthcoming for the delay. Further the property list was not marked. There is discrepancy in the property list regarding the quantity of sample taken as mentioned therein when compared to the First Information Report and seizure mahazer. In seizure mahazer, the quantity mentioned is 500 ml whereas in the property list it was corrected as 600 ml and it was shown as 600 ml in the forwarding note as well. So it cannot be said that article reached the court without tampering and under such circumstances it cannot be said that the chemical analysis report relates to the same article alleged to have been seized from the possession of the accused and that benefit must be given to the accused. He had relied on the decision reported in Ravi v. State of Kerala & another, 2011 (3) K