In Abkari cases, where the integrity of the seized contraband is questioned due to the absence of a specimen seal on the seizure mahazar and forwarding note, the prosecution fails to establish the necessary link evidence to the chemical examiner, necessitating an acquittal due to unresolved reasonable doubt.

ORDER :

JOBIN SEBASTIAN, J.

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act by the Assistant Sessions Judge- II, Kozhikode as per the judgment dated 06.02.2017 in S.C. No.946/2014, which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kozikode, as per judgment dated 15.07.2017 in Crl. Appeal No.66/2017. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in the said case.

2. The prosecution case is that on 10.02.2015 at 6.00 p.m., at Pattasserimukku on Seethapara-Muthukad Public Road, the accused was found in possession of 750 ml of arrack and engaged in the sale of the same in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act. Thus, the accused is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the .

3. During trial, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW7 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P8. MO1 and MO2 were exhibited and identified. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, during which he denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out against him in evidence. As it was not a fit case to acquit the accused under Section 232 of Cr.P.C, he was directed to enter on his defence and to adduce any evidence that he may have in support thereof. However, no evidence whatsoever was produced from the side of the accused.

4. Finally, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act, and he was convicted. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence for which he was found guilty. In default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.66/2017 before the Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, who heard the appeal, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Challenging the said appellate judgment, the accused has filed the present revision petition.

6. Heard Smt. Uma Maheshwari, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Smt. M. Anima, the learned Public Prosecutor, also perused the records.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is wholly innocent of the allegations levelled against him and that both the trial court and the appellate court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. According to the learned counsel, the revision petitioner has absolutely no connection with the contraband allegedly seized in the case and has been falsely implicated on the basis of mere surmises and conjectures. The learned counsel further contended that the search and seizure procedures were not conducted by the detecting officer in a foolproof manner, thereby leaving ample scope for manipulation and tampering. It was also submitted that there is no satisfactory link evidence to establish that the contraband allegedly seized from the accused is the very same material that ultimately reached the chemical examiner’s laboratory for analysis. According to the learned cou