The absence of a tamper-proof link between seized contraband and laboratory sample leads to reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to acquittal.

Muralee Krishna S., J.

This revision petition is filed underSection 397R/W Section 401 of Cr.P.C, by the accused in C.C.No.355 of 2009, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kottayam. By the judgment dated 10.09.2013 passed by the learned Magistrate in that Calender Case, the petitioner was convicted for the offence underSection 20(b)(ii)(A) of theNarcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the ‘NDPS Act’ for short), and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Crl.A.No.340 of 2013 filed by the petitioner before the Sessions Division, Kottayam, was ended in dismissal as per the judgment dated 07.01.2015 of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kottayam. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court with this revision petition. 2. The prosecution case is that, on 12.06.2008, at about 10.00 p.m., the petitioner-accused was found transporting 520 grams of Ganja in an autorickshaw bearing Registration No. KL- 5A-1704 through the Kooropada-Oravackel road with an intention to sell the same at Ariparambu. The offence was detected by the Excise Circle Inspector, Kottayam, in front of a waiting shed near Mahadevar Temple at Ariparambu. According to the prosecution, on intercepting the autorickshaw and searching the vehicle, the Circle Inspector and party found the aforementioned contraband article from the dashboard of the vehicle and seized the same.

3. During trial, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 11 and marked Exts.P1 to P9 documents and also identified MOs 1 to 3 material objects. No defence evidence was adduced from the side of the accused. After hearing and on appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial court found the petitioner-accused guilty of the aforesaid offence and sentenced him as mentioned above, which was confirmed in the appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner-accused would argue that during evidence, no forwarding note was marked from the side of the prosecution before the trial court. The laches on the part of the prosecution in marking the forwarding note by tendering it in evidence or proving tamper-free submission of the sample to the chemical examination laboratory is fatal, and therefore, the petitioner-accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt.

6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that only for the reason that the forwarding note was not tendered in evidence, the other convincing evidence adduced from the side of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside, especially, when the trial court as well as the appellate court arrived at a finding against the petitioner-accused after analysing the evidence on record.

7. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court and appreciated the rival submissions made at the Bar. It is trite that this Court, being a revisional court, need not reappreciate the evidence, which was already appreciated by the trial court as well as the appellate court. However, if there are glaring laches on the part of the prosecution which materially affect the prosecution case, a revisional court is entitled to appreciate the said aspect.

8. In Ali v. State of Kerala [2001 (2) KLT 389] , while considering an offence under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that when a doubt arises with regard to the authenticity of the sample that reached the laboratory; i.e., whether it was the very same article allegedly seized from the accused that ultimately reached the Forensic Science Laboratory,