ORDER

The revision petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.438 of 2006 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kattappana alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Abkari Act .

2. The prosecution case is that the Excise Inspector of Peermade Range, accompanied by the Preventive Officer and other officials while conducting patrol duty at around 4.00 p.m on 24.1.2004, nearby the T.R & T Estate situated at Chennapparamukal kara in Peruvanthanam Village, found out the accused transported around 15 litres of arrack in a 35 litres volumed plastic can. He was arrested from the place and seized the contraband article from the possession of the accused.

3. On the side of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exts.P1 to P8 and MO1 were marked.

4. The trial court on consideration of the evidence adduced found that the accused is guilty of the charges levelled against him and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

5. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, an appeal was preferred as Crl. Appeal No.47 of 2008 before the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha, but the appeal was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Crl.Revision Petition is filed.

6. The petitioner raised the following contentions assailing the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below. The primary contention raised by the petitioner is that there is no arrest intimation in this case, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further contention raised is that in Ext.P4 seizure mahazar it is specifically stated that the sample was taken at the spot and the label has been affixed wherein the signature of the accused, the witnesses and the detecting officer is endorsed. It has come out in evidence that the label affixed in MO1 is not there. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in Ext.P4 mahazar, no specimen seal is seen affixed. Further contention raised is that in Ext.P7 forwarding note, no seal is seen affixed. It is also contended that in Ext. P7 forwarding note, the name of the officer through which the alleged contraband is forwarded to the chemical analysis laboratory is not stated. Though his name is stated in the chemical analysis report, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the same is not sufficient. He further raised a contention that though the alleged sample was forwarded by the court on 30.1.2004, it reached the chemical analysis laboratory on 31.1.2004 and the delay has not been explained by the prosecution by examining the person through which the contraband was sent for chemical examination or the thondi clerk attached to the court. Yet another contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that though the occurrence was on 24.1.2004, the final report was filed only on 16.5.2006, even though the chemical analysis report was made available on 20.5.2005. There is a long unexplained delay in completing the investigation which goes against the mandate of Section 50 of the Abkari Act and the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

7. Though it is true that the scope of interference by this court exercising revisional jurisdiction is limited, it does not preclude this court from examining whether there is strict compliance with the statutory formalities mandated as per the Abkari Act . This court inBaburaj v. State of Kerala, 2021 (6) KLT 416 , has held that given the stringent nature of the provisions of the Act and the harsh sentence provided, strict compliance of the statutory formalities specified in the Act is necessary. The presumption of official acts to have been performed regularly and properly as provided in Section 114 (e) of the Evidence Act has no application if offici