Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : M. Sasindran, A. Arunkumar
For the Respondent: Renjith George

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• Case Details: The case involves A. Badharudeen (Appellant) versus the State of Kerala regarding Crl. Appeal No. 157 of 2014, decided on 20-05-2025 by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. (!) (!)
• Charge and Conviction: The accused was convicted under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act for possessing 4.875 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) without a security label. The trial court sentenced him to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, with an additional three months for non-payment. (!) (!) (!)
• Defense Argument: The appellant challenged the conviction citing procedural irregularities in evidence collection, specifically referencing the precedent Vijayan @ Puthoor Vijayan v. State of Kerala. The defense argued that the officer failed to describe the specimen seal in the recovery mahazar and failed to affix the seal on the mahazar, creating doubt about the sample's integrity. Additionally, independent witnesses (PW2 and PW4) turned hostile. (!)
• Judicial Precedent on Procedure: The High Court reiterated the mandatory steps for sample collection and verification as established in Vijayan @ Puthoor Vijayan, including transparent collection, proper sealing, immediate production before a magistrate, and verification by the Thondy Clerk and Chemical Examiner to prevent tampering. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Court Findings on Evidence: The Court found that the recovery mahazar (Ext.P3) lacked a narration specifying the nature of the specimen seal and did not have the sample seal affixed to it. This failure to comply with mandatory procedural safeguards meant the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the sample reached the Chemical Examiner without manipulation. (!)
• Impact of Hostile Witnesses: While the hostility of independent witnesses (PW2 and PW4) did not automatically render the recovery unbelievable given the corroboration by official witnesses (PW1 and PW5), the procedural lapses identified by the defense were sufficient to create reasonable doubt. (!)
• Verdict: The appeal was allowed. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act due to the failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. (!) (!)
• Relief Granted: The bail bond executed by the appellant was cancelled, and he was set at liberty forthwith. Any fine amount deposited by the appellant was ordered to be refunded. (!) (!)