The prosecution must establish the chain of custody and timely production of evidence in drug offences; failure to do so entitles the accused to benefit of doubt.

1. The revision petitioner herein is the accused in S.C. No. 209 of 2004 on the file of Assistant Sessions Court, Thiruvalla alleging commission of offences punishable under S.8(1) read with 8(2) of the Abkari Act .

2. The prosecution allegation is that the revision petitioner was seen in possession of 15 cans having capacity of 35 litres containing spirit on 05.09.2001 at 1.15 pm, in the latrine near the house of one Thyparambil Mathew and thereby the accused has committed the alleged offences.

3. The prosecution in support of their case examined PWs 1 to 3 and Exts P1 to P6 were marked and identified MO1 to MO15. The trial Court found the accused guilty and convicted him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.

4. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, an appeal was preferred as Crl.Appeal No.210 of 2010 which also ended up in dismissal whereby the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court was upheld.

5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner raised the following contentions. The first contention raised is that though the occurrence was on 05.09.2001, a perusal of Ext P3 property list would reveal that the seized properties were produced before the Court on 11.09.2001. Therefore, there is a delay of six days in producing the same before the Court. PW3 would depose that no reason has been stated for the delay in producing the same before the Court. Learned counsel would further contend that no specimen seal is affixed in the mahazar or in the forwarding note. Yet another contention raised by the revision petitioner is that a perusal of Ext P6 chemical analysis report would reveal that the sample was forwarded from the Court as per letter No. T.R.329/2001 dated 19.10.2001. But admittedly the same reached the chemical analysis laboratory only on 28.10.2021. The forwarding note does not contain the date on which the samples were forwarded for chemical analysis. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would also contend that the forwarding note does not contain the name of the guard through whom the samples were sent for chemical examination. Therefore it was incumbent on the part of the prosecution to examine either the property clerk or the person through whom the contraband was sent for examination to the chemical analysis laboratory.

6. 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 in Baburaj 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 S.114(e) of the Evidence Act has no application if official acts are not shown to be performed properly, as held in Sathi v. State of Kerala , 2007 (1) KLT SN 82. In this backdrop, it is to be considered as to whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused without any reasonable doubt.

7. The first contention raised is that though the occurrence was on 05.09.2001, a perusal of Ext P3 property list would reveal that the seized properties were produced before the Court on 11.09.2001. Therefore, there is a delay of six days in producing the same befo