In cases of possession of contraband under the Abkari Act, it is mandatory for the prosecution to prove an unbroken chain of custody of the sample, failing which the conviction cannot be sustained due to reasonable doubt regarding the integrity of the evidence.

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 offences punishable under Sections 55(g) and 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act by the Assistant Sessions Court, Nedumangad as per the judgment dated 02.06.2014 in S.C. No.592/2009, which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Court-VII, Thiruvananthapuram, as per judgment dated 29.01.2016 in Crl. Appeal No.202/2014. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in the said case.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 02.10.2007 at 6.00 p.m., the accused was found in possession and transporting of 1.5 litres of arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act. Thus, the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 55(g) and 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act.

3. During trial, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW4 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P6. 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 offences punishable under Section 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act, and he was convicted. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the . In default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.202/2014 before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, allowed the appeal in part and modified the sentence imposed on the accused, while confirming the finding of guilt entered by the trial court. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved thereby, the accused has filed the present revision petition.

6. Heard Sri.Ranju Mohan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri. U. Jayakrishnan, 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 based on mere surmises and conjectures. It was further contended that the procedures relating to seizure and sampling were not carried out in a foolproof and tamper-proof manner, thereby leaving room for possible tampering. According to the learned counsel, it would be unsafe to sustain the conviction solely based on the testimony of the detecting officer in the facts and circumstances of the case. It was further argued that the prosecution failed