In criminal cases involving contraband, the prosecution must ensure a tamper-proof chain of custody, specifically regarding sample sealing and storage; failure to explain significant delays in laboratory production or provide evidence of the seal's integrity necessitates acquittal as it creates 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 order of sentence passed against the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act by the Assistant Sessions Court, Kasaragod, as per judgment dated 24.06.2009 in S.C. No.767/2005, which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-III), Kasaragod, by judgment dated 22.01.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.161/2009. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in the said case.

2. The prosecution case is that on 20.09.2003, at about 6:00 p.m., the accused was found in possession of 2½ litres of arrack in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act. Thus, the accused is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act.

3. During trial, from the side of prosecution seven witnesses were examined as PWs 1 to PW7 and marked Ext. P1 to P12. 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 in evidence against him. Since the court found that it was not a fit case for acquittal under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C., the accused was called upon to enter upon his defence and adduce evidence, if any, in support thereof. But no evidence whatsoever was adduced from the side of the accused.

4. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and convicted him thereunder. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence for which he was convicted. In default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.161/2009 before the Sessions Judge, Kasaragod. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, the accused has preferred the present revision petition.

6. Heard Sri. Rahul Sunil, the learned amicus curiae and Smt. Anima M., the learned Public Prosecutor. The records were also perused.

7. The learned amicus curiae 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 amicus curiae, the revision petitioner has absolutely no connection with the contraband allegedly seized in the case and has been falsely implicated on mere surmises and conjectures. It was further contended that the search and seizure procedures were not conducted in a foolproof manner, thereby leaving ample scope for manipulation and tampering. In the absence of the s pecimen seal, the seizure mahazar itself creates serious doubt regarding the sanctity of the seizure, and the possibility of subsequent tampering cannot be ruled out. Hence, there is no assurance that the contraband analyzed in the laboratory was the very same contraband allegedly seized in the case. On these premises, it was contended that the revision petitioner is entitled to an order of acquittal.

8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is ample evidence on record to establish that the contraband involved in the case was recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused and, there