IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove the integrity of sampling and sealing procedures in drug cases; failure to do so results in acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Jobin Sebastian, J.

The sole accused in S.C.No.427/2011, on the file of Additional Sessions Court-I, Kasaragod, has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against him in the said case for the offence punishable under Section 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act.

2. The prosecution allegation in brief is that, on 06.09.2008, at 12.20 hrs, the accused was found in possession and transit of 200 packets of arrack containing 100ml each in a scooter bearing registration No.KL-14-A-8974, though Mailatti-Koottakani road in Panayal village, in violation 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. On completion of the investigation, the final report was submitted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg. On being satisfied that the said 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, Kasaragod, under Section 209 of Cr.PC. The learned Sessions Judge, after taking cognizance made over the case to the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kasaragod, for trial and disposal. On 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 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, he 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 P12. After the completion of prosecution evidence, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied all the incriminating materials brought out against him in evidence. On finding that the accused could not be acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C., he was called upon to enter on his defence and adduce any evidence he may have in support thereof. But no evidence, whatsoever, was adduced from the side of the accused.

5. After trial, the accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under section 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act, and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1 Lakh. In default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year. 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 appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accused is innocent of the allegations levelled against him and that he was falsely implicated in this case. According to the counsel, the accused had no connection whatsoever with the contraband allegedly seized in this case, and he was implicated on the basis of summaries and conjectures. According to the counsel in the case at hand, there is absolutely no material to show that the sample of the arrack that got analyzed in the laboratory is the very same sample drawn from the contraband seized in this case. It is pointed out that, in the Mahazar as well as in the property list, the sample seal or specimen impression of the seal allegedly used is nowhere affixed. In short, the crux of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is patent flaw in the manner in which the seizure and sampling procedures were carried out in this case rendering no guarantee that the sample produced before the court as well as reached for examination in the chemical examination laboratory is the same sample collected from the spot of detection. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that all the procedural formalit