The accused in S.C. No. 456 of 2001 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Mavelikkara, filed this Revision Petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Sections 8(2) and 55(a) of the Abkari Act.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The prosecution allegation is that on 5.5.1998 at 5.30 p.m., the revision petitioner was found in possession of 8 litres of illicit arrack in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

4. Before the trial court, PW1 to PW6 were examined and Exts. P1 to Ext.P5 were marked for the prosecution, besides identifying MO1. No evidence was adduced on the side of the revision petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that since no forwarding note was marked in this case, the revision petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt. The learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court in Prakasan and Another v. State of Kerala 2016 (1) KLD 311). In Prakasan (supra), the Court held thus:-

“Further in the absence of specimen seal impression of the seal used for sealing the article having been produced in Court and in the absence of producing and marking the forwarding note