IMPORTANT POINTS
• It is not necessary to produce the article seized under Section 34 of the Abkari Act before the Magistrate forthwith either by virtue of Section 102(3) Cr.P.C or by virtue of any of the provisions of the Abkari Act or the Abkari manual.
• A conviction cannot be entered against the accused in a prosecution as the present one unless it is proved that the sample which was analysed by the chemical examiner was the very same sample drawn from the liquid allegedly seized from the possession of the accused. The prosecution has to prove all the links starting from the seizure of the samples till the same reached the hands of the chemical examiner.

The appellant is the third accused in the case S.C.No.259/2006 on the file of the Court of Session, Palakkad. The appeal is filed assailing the conviction entered and sentence passed against him under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, 1077.

2. The prosecution case is as follows:

On 20.03.2000, at about 00.15 hours, the Sub Inspector, Walayar police station was inspecting the vehicles at the road in front of Kanjikode Panchayat Office. The lorry bearing registration number KA-01-5248 was not stopped there. The police party followed the lorry in the police jeep. At 00.20 hours, at the Hospital Junction at Kanjikode, the police party intercepted the lorry and inspected it. They found sacks containing onion kept in the lorry. Among those sacks, they found 202 cans, each having the capacity of 35 litres, which contained spirit. The Sub Inspector took three samples of liquid from each can and seized the cans containing the spirit and the samples and other articles and also the vehicle as per Ext.P1 mahazar. The first accused was the driver and the second accused was the cleaner of the lorry. Along with them, the appellant, the third accused, was also found in the cabin of the lorry. The Sub Inspector arrested them. It is alleged that the accused possessed and transported spirit in violation of the provisions contained in the Abkari Act and the rules thereunder.

3. The first and the second accused were absconding at the time of the trial of the case. The appellant, the third accused, faced trial. He pleaded not guilty to the charge framed by the court under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act.

4. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and marked Exts.P1 to P6 and MO1 series. No evidence was adduced by the appellant. The trial court found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.

4A. Heard Sri.Nireesh Mathew, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.M.N.Maya, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the records.

5. PW1 is the Sub Inspector who detected the alleged offence. He has given evidence regarding the occurrence almost in tune with the prosecution case. PW2 was the Head Constable and PW3 was the Assistant Sub Inspector who were in the police party led by PW1. Their evidence, more or less, corroborates the testimony of PW1 on the material particulars of the occurrence.

6. PW4 and PW5 are the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution. They were persons summoned by the police to unload the articles from the lorry. They denied having seen the appellant at the spot of the occurrence. But, they admitted their signature in Ext.P1 mahazar. PW4 has given evidence that he saw 202 cans containing spirit in the lorry.

7. PW1 has sworn to the entire incident in necessary details. His evidence, on all material particulars, is corroborated by the evidence of PW2 and PW3 and to some extent, by the testimony of PW4. There is no striking improbability or material contradiction or discrepancy in the evidence of PW1 to PW3 regarding the seizure of 202 cans containing liquid from the lorry and the presence of the appellant in the cabin of the lorry. There is no whisper of an allegation that PW1 or any other police officer had any motive to falsely implicate the appellant in such a serious crime. There is nothing to show that the police officers have falsely implicated the appellant with a view to settle any personal score with him. In such circumstances, there is no sufficient ground to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 to PW3 regarding the seizure of 202 cans containing liquid from the lorry and the presence of the appellant in the cabin of the lorry.

8. However, seizure of 202 cans containing some liquid, from the lorry in which the appellant was travelling, does not prove the