The prosecution must establish a clear chain of custody for seized samples in drug-related cases; failure to do so undermines the evidentiary value of laboratory reports.

J U D G M E N T

Aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.09.2007, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track (Adhoc) Mavelikara, in Sessions Case No.509/2003, the accused has preferred this appeal. The appellant was convicted under Sections 8 (2) and 55(a) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three and a half years and pay a fine of Rs.1 Lakh.

2. The prosecution case is that on 19.11.2001, at 12.00 noon, the appellant was found in possession of 10 liters of arrack at Pichanattu Mukku, in violation of the provisions of the Abkari Act .

3. After completing the investigation, final report was submitted against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 8 (2) and 55(a) of the Abkari Act before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, from where it was made over to the trial court. On the appearance of the accused, charges were framed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 8 (2) and 55(a) of the . The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges, and therefore, he came to be tried by the trial court for the aforesaid offences.

4. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and proved Exts.P1 to P8 and MO1.

5. After the closure of evidence on behalf of the prosecution, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He pleaded innocence. The trial Court heard the matter under Section 232 Cr.P.C. and found evidence against the accused, and hence he was called upon to enter on his defence and adduce evidence, if any, he may have in support thereof. On the side of defence, DWs1 and 2 were examined. After hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, the Trial Court convicted the appellant/accused for the aforesaid offences.

6. Heard Sri.K.Harilal the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused and Sri.G.Sudheer, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish that the arrack allegedly seized from the place of occurrence eventually reached the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following circumstances to substantiate his contentions:-

i) The delay in the production of properties has not been explained by the prosecution.

ii) Ext.P1 mahazar does not contain the specimen of the seal used.

iii) The prosecution has not offered any explanation for the custody of the sample during the period from 01.12.2001 to 07.12.2001.

9. The alleged seizure was effected on 19.11.2001. Ext.P6 property list shows that the sample was received in the court only on 07.12.2001. There is no explanation for the delay in the production of properties including the sample before the Court.

10. In Ravi v. State of Kerala [2011 (3) KHC 121] on the question of delay in the production of properties, a Division Bench of this Court held thus:

“8. We, therefore, answer the reference as follows:

1. It is not necessary to produce the article seized under S.34 of the Abkari Act before the Magistrate 'forthwith' either by virtue of S.102(3) Cr.PC or by virtue of any of the provisions the statute is only that the seizure of the property should be reported forthwith to the Court. But we hasten to ad that the production of the property before Court (wherever it is practicable) should also take place without unnecessary delay. There should be explanation for the delay when there is delayed production of the property.”

In Ravi's case (supra) the Division Bench held that production of the property before the Court should take place without unnecessary delay and that there should be explanation for the delay when there is delayed production of the property.

11. Ext.P1 seizure mahazar does not contain the nature of the seal stated to have been used by the detecting officer. The detecting officer has also not given evidence as to the specific nature of