Prosecution must conclusively prove the identity of the accused and the continuity of evidence linking the seized contraband to the laboratory analysis to secure a conviction.

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.03.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Abkari cases) Kottarakkara in SC.No.88/2002, the accused has preferred this appeal.

2. The trial court convicted the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 55 (a) of the Kerala Abkari Act . 3. The prosecution case is that on 16.02.2000 at about 19.25 hours, the accused was found in possession of illicit arrack in 20 polythone packets each containing 150 ml in front of Niza Manzil, Maravoorkonam, Kuravan therri. The offence was detected by the S.I of Police, Anchal.

4. After completion of investigation, final report was submitted against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 55 (a) and 55(i) of the Abkari Act before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Punalur.

5. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, Kollam, from where it was made over to the Additional Sessions Court, Kottarakkara. On appearance of the accused, charges were framed against her for the offences punishable under Sections 55 (a) and 55(i) of the Abkari Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, she came to be tried by the trial court for the aforesaid offences. 6. The evidence for the prosecution consists of the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 5, Exts.P1 to P5 and MOs.1 to 3.

7. After closure of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. She pleaded innocence. The trial court heard the matter under Section 232 Cr.P.C. and found that there was evidence against the accused and hence she was called upon to enter on her defence and to adduce evidence, if any, she may have in support thereof.

8. The learned trial court, after hearing arguments addressed from both sides, found that the accused was guilty of offence under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act and she was convicted thereunder. The accused was acquitted of the offence under (i) of the Abkari Act. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- under (a) of the Abkari Act.

9. Heard Sri. B.Mohanlal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused and Sri. M.S. Breez, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused canvassed the following grounds to challenge the judgment of conviction and sentence:

(a) The prosecution failed to establish the identity of the person, who was allegedly possessing the contraband substance at the place of occurrence.

(b) The prosecution has not satisfactorily explained the delay in the production of the properties before the court.

(c) The prosecution has not succeeded in establishing that the contraband substance said to have been seized from the place of occurrence was eventually subjected to analysis in the Chemical Examiner's laboratory.

11. The learned Public Prosecutor, per contra, submitted that the prosecution could well establish the charge against the accused.

12. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the appellant/accused are sustainable or not.

THE POINT

13. PW5, the Circle Inspector of Police, Anchal, detected the offence. He has given evidence that, on 16.06.2000 while he was on patrol duty, on getting reliable information that illicit arrack was being sold at the place of occurrence, the police team led by him reached there at 7.15 p.m.

14. According to PW5, on seeing the Police party, a lady who was found carrying a plastic cover ran away from the scene. PW5 found that the plastic cover contained 20 polythene packets each containing 150 ml of liquor. PW5 seized the articles found in the place of occurrence as per Ext.P1 seizure mahazar. PW5 opened one of the packets and ascertained that it contained illicit arrack. PW5 opened three more packets and the contents therein were poured into two bottles and sealed them. According to PW5, he ha