Proper chain of custody and integrity of evidence are crucial in drug-related offenses; failure to provide this undermines the prosecution's case.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal has been filed challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused in S.C. No.321/2006 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.II – Adhoc), Thrissur in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Sections 8 (1) & 8 (2) of the Abkari Act .

2. The gist of the prosecution case is that the appellant/accused was found in possession of 2 litre of arrack by PWs 1 & 2 who were on patrol duty on 26-02-2003 at Aloor Village of Mukundapuram Taluk. Following the investigation of the case, a final report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda from where it was was committed to the Sessions Court, Thrissur for trial and disposal. The Sessions Court, Thrissur made over the matter to the Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.II – Adhoc), Thrissur. Charges were framed against the appellant/accused under the aforesaid provisions of the Abkari Act . The appellant/accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution led evidence by examining PWs 1 to 6, marking Exts.P1 to P11 documents and identifying M.O1 & 2. On closure of prosecution evidence the appellant/accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all incriminating materials appearing against him and pleaded innocence. However, the appellant/accused did not lead any defence evidence. On an appreciation of the evidence tendered by the prosecution the learned trial judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the allegations against the appellant/accused and therefore convicted him and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year under Section 8 (2) of the . Set off was permitted in respect of the period of remand, if any.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal is liable to be allowed on a short point. He submits that there are material contradictions in the evidence tendered by PWs 1 & 2 and the contents of Ext.P1 seizure mahazer. He submits that the lie of the road according to the seizure mahazer is North to South and further that appellant had handed over M.O2 glass to PWs 1 & 2. However, in the box, PWs 1 & 2 stated that the lie of the road was from East to West and that M.O2 was recovered from the body of the appellant/accused following a search. He also submits that Ext.P1 mahazer does not describe or contain the sample of the seal affixed on the samples drawn for the purpose of chemical examination.

4. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. On a perusal of Ext.P1 seizure mahazer it is evident that samples were drawn from the contraband seized from the appellant/accused at the spot itself for the purpose of chemical analysis. It is settled law that the seizure mahazer must either give description of the seal used for sample or should provide a sample of the seal itself to ensure that the vital link between the contraband seized and the chemical analysis report is established. In cases like these where the prosecution has fails to establish the crucial link between the contraband seized from the appellant/accused and the chemical analysis report, the prosecution must fail. This Court in Bhaskaran K. v. State of Kerala and another; 2020 KHC 5296 held as follows:-

“21. The detecting officer, who has drawn the sample, has to give evidence as to the nature of the seal affixed on the bottle containing the sample. The nature of the seal used shall be mentioned in the seizure mahazar. The specimen of the seal shall be produced in the court. The specimen of the seal shall be provided in the seizure mahazar and also in the forwarding note so as to enable the Court to satisfy the genuineness of the sample produced in the court (See Achuthan v. State of Kerala : 2016 (1) KLD 391 : ILR 2016(2) Ker 145 ). A comparison of the specimen of the seal of the Court p