IMPORTANT POINT
Prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to follow proper procedures in seizure and sampling can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

1. The accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.419/2013, on the file of Additional Sessions Court-VII, Ernakulam, has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against them for the offence punishable under Section 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act . of the Abkari Act .

2. The prosecution allegation in brief is that, on 30.09.2011 at 3.30 p.m., the accused Nos.1 and 2 were found in possession of 17 litres of arrack in their residential house named Kottapuram House bearing No.XIII/218(Old No.II/299) of Vengoor Panchayat, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act , and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act .

3. Upon completion of the investigation, the final report was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perumbavoor. Being satisfied that the case is one exclusively triable by a court of Session, the learned Magistrate, after complying with all legal formalities, committed the case to the Court of Session, Ernakulam, under Section 209 of Cr.PC. The learned Sessions Judge, having taken cognizance of the offence, made over the case to the Additional Sessions Court-VII, Ernakulam for trial and disposal. On the appearance of the accused before the trial court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and upon perusal of the records, framed a written charge against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act . When the charge was read over and explained to the accused, both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution, in its bid to prove the charge levelled against the accused, has altogether examined six witnesses as PW1 to PW6, and marked Exts.P1 to P14. MO1 and MO2 were exhibited and identified. After the completion of prosecution evidence, both the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., during which they denied all the incriminating materials brought out against them in evidence. On finding that this is not a case of no evidence and hence the accused could not be acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C., they were called upon to enter on their defence and adduce any evidence they may have in support thereof. But no evidence, whatsoever, was adduced from the side of the accused.

5. After trial, both the accused were found guilty of the offence punishable under section 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act , and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 Lakh each. In default of payment of the fine, the accused were ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. Assailing the said judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed, the present appeal has been preferred.

6. I heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the accused are innocent of the allegations levelled against them and they were falsely implicated in this case. According to the counsel, the accused had no connection whatsoever with the liquor allegedly seized in this case, and they were implicated on the basis of surmises and conjectures, and due to political reasons. According to the counsel in the case at hand, there is absolutely no convincing evidence to show that the sample that was analysed in the laboratory is the very same one that was allegedly drawn from the spot of detection. It is pointed out that in the Mahaza