IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove the chain of custody for evidence in drug-related offenses; failure to do so results in acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Jobin Sebastian, J.

The sole accused in S.C. No. 280/2013, on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-III (ADHOC-I), Thodupuzha, has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against him 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 22.07.2012, at 7.50 a.m., near the muster shed of a tea factory at Ottamaram in Upputhara Village, the accused was found in possession of 2 liters of arrack in a plastic can 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 conclusion of the investigation, the final report was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Peermade. 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, Thodupuzha, under Section 209 of Cr.PC.

4. The learned Sessions Judge, having taken cognizance of the offence, made over the case to the Additional Sessions Court-III (ADHOC-I), Thodupuzha, for trial and disposal. On the appearance of the accused, 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 the 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.

5. During the trial, from the side of the prosecution, altogether five witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW5 and marked Exts. P1 to P11. After the completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., during which he denied all the incriminating materials brought out against him. 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., he was called upon to enter on his defence and adduce any evidence that he may have in support thereof. From the side of the accused, one witness was examined as DW1, and two documents were marked as Exts. D1 and D2.

6. 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 one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In default of payment of the fine, the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Assailing the said judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed, the present appeal has been preferred.

7. I heard Sri.M.V.Rajendran Nair, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Smt.N.S.Hasnamol, the learned Public Prosecutor.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial court failed to appreciate the facts and evidence brought on record in this case in its proper perspective and arrived at a conclusion of guilt in a hasty and erroneous manner. According to the counsel, the accused was implicated in this case on the basis of some summaries and conjectures. It was contended that the procedures relating to seizure and sampling were not done in a foolproof manner, leaving room for tampering. The learned counsel further submitted that the hostility shown by the independent witnesses to the prosecution case is fatal, especially when the seizure and sampling procedures were not in a tamper-proof condition. According to the counsel, it is unsafe to act upon the solitary evidence of the detecting officer to sustain a conviction in this case. The counsel urged that the prosecution failed to establish sufficient link evidence to show that the sample allegedly drawn from the spot of detection is the very same sample that reached the chemical examiner’s laboratory for analysis.

9. In response, the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that, to el