JUDGMENT

These appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 14.11.2006 in S.C.Nos.498/2000 and 470/2001 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Mavelikkara which arose from Crime No.322 of 1997 of Mannar Police Station. The appellant in Crl.A.No. 2224/2006 is accused No.1 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.470/2001 is accused No.2 in the crime.

2. By the impugned judgment, the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 8(2) and 55(g) of the Kerala Abkari Act. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act.

3. The prosecution case is that on 02.09.1997, around 11.45 a.m., the appellants were found in possession of 250 ml. of arrack in the house by the name ‘Kuttitharayil Sojan Bhavanam’ in Kuttamperoor Muri of Mannar village. The crime was detected by the Mannar Police. The Police also recovered 8 litres of fermented spirit and about 85 litres of wash intended to manufacture arrack. The appellants were arrested from the place of occurrence along with the contraband substances.

4. After completing the investigation, the Mannar Police submitted final report against the appellants before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Chengannur. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, from where it was made over to the Additional Sessions Court-I, Mavelikara. On the appearance of the accused, the Court framed charges against them. They pleaded not guilty to the charges.

5. The prosecution examined PWs1 to 6 and proved Exts.P1 to P10 and MOs 1 to 5.

6. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. They pleaded total innocence. The Trial Court heard the matter under Section 232 Cr.P.C. and found evidence against the accused and hence they were called upon to enter on their defence and adduce evidence, if any, they may have in support thereof. After hearing the arguments addressed from both sides, the Trial Court convicted the appellants as aforesaid.

7. Heard Sri.John Britto, the learned counsel for the appellants and Smt.Rekha.S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the prosecution failed to establish that the contraband substances, allegedly seized from the possession of the accused, eventually reached the Chemical Examiner’s laboratory in a tamper-proof condition. It is submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the contraband commencing from the place of occurrence to the stage when the contraband reached the laboratory.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on the following circumstances to establish his contentions:-

(1) The nature and description of the seal stated to have been afÏxed on the samples allegedly drawn from the scene of occurrence had not been narrated in Ext.P3 seizure mahazar.

(2) There is nothing to show that the specimen impression of the seal was forwarded to the Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory for comparison.

10. I have carefully examined the seizure mahazar and the other contemporaneous records prepared at the scene of occurrence. The nature of the seal stated to have been used by the detecting ofÏcer had not been mentioned either in the seizure mahazar or any other documents. It is further seen that the specimen of the seal had not been produced in the Court to enable the Court to satisfy the genuineness of the sample produced in the Court. As also, there is no evidence to show that a forwarding note was prepared and forwarded to the Chemical Examiner’s laboratory. The law on these aspects was considered by this Court in Baburaj v. State of Kerala [2021 (6) KLT 416]. Following a series of