JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the court below under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act.

2. The prosecution allegation is that on 16.7.1998 at about 6.30 a.m., the appellant was found in possession of three litres of arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

3. Heard.

4. It has been argued that since there was inordinate delay in producing the contraband and the sample before the court, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.

5. PW3 produced the contraband and the sample before the court on 31.7.1998. Ext.P9 is the property list, which would show that the contraband and the sample were produced before the court only on 31.7.1998. No explanation had been given by PW3 for the delay in producing the contraband and the sample before the court. There is also no evidence with regard to the safe custody of the contraband and the sample till their production before the court. The delay as such, is not always fatal to the prosecution case. However, unexplained delay is, no doubt, fatal to the prosecution case. In this case, since there was long and unexplained delay from 16.7.1998 to 31.7.1998 in producing the contraband and the sample before th