The necessity for strict adherence to the chain of custody in drug-related prosecutions is paramount for the evidential value of analysis results.

J U D G M E N T

Aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.10.2008, passed by the Additional Sessions Court, Vadakara in S.C.No.141/2007, the accused has preferred this appeal. The appellant/accused was convicted under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year and pay a fine of Rs.1 Lakh.

2. The prosecution case is that on 24.01.2005 at about 3.30 p.m., the appellant/accused was found in possession and transporting 30 bottles of Indian made Foreign Liquor in a bus bearing Registration No. KL.11/N- 707 at Uralungal amsom, Madappalli desom in violation of the provisions of Abkari Act .

3. After completing the investigation, final report was submitted against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 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, charge was framed against him for the offence punishable under Section 55 (a) of the . The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge, and therefore, he came to be tried by the Trial Court for the aforesaid offence.

4. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 7 and proved Exts.P1 to P9.

5. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the 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. After hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, the Trial Court convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence.

6. Heard Sri. R. Bindu Sasthamangalam, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused and Smt. Rekha.S, the learned Senior 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 contraband substance allegedly seized from the place of occurrence was eventually subjected to analysis in the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused relied on the following circumstances to substantiate his contentions;

a. Ext.P2 seizure mahazar does not contain the nature and description of the seal stated to have been affixed on the bottles containing the sample.

b. The Detecting Officer has not given evidence as to the nature of the seal used.

c. The various officials, who handled the sample during its transit from the Court to the laboratory were not examined.

9. The alleged seizure was effected by PW1 on

24.01.2005. He had prepared Ext.P2 mahazar at the time of seizure. Ext.P2 does not contain the nature and description of the seal stated to have been affixed on the bottles containing the sample. PW1 has not given evidence as to the nature of the seal used.

10. The sample remained in the custody of the Junior Superintendent of the Court, the property clerk of the Court and the Excise Guard by name Sri. A. Vinod, who delivered the sample to the laboratory. Those witnesses were not examined by the prosecution to rule out the possibility of the sample being changed or tampered with. The non-examination of those witnesses is fatal to the prosecution as it failed to establish the tamper-proof despatch of the sample to the laboratory.

11. The crux of the offences under the Abkari Act , by its very nature, is the seizure of the contraband. The prosecution in a case of this nature can succeed only if it establishes that the very same sample drawn from the place of occurrence was the sample tested in the Chemical Examiner's laboratory.

12. A legal obligation is cast on the prosecution to prove that it was the contraband substance allegedly seized from the possession of the accused eventually reached the Chemical Examiner's laboratory in a tamper-proof condition. The chain of custody of the