Procedural lapses in evidence collection result in reasonable doubt, necessitating acquittal when integrity of evidence is questioned.

O R D E R This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the revision petitioner under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sultan Batheri as per the judgment dated 26.03.2013 in S.C No.67/2003, which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Court - II, Kalpetta, as per judgment dated 12.01.2017 in Crl. Appeal No. 40/2017. The revision petitioner is the first accused in the said case, and the remaining accused were acquitted by the trial court.

2. The prosecution case is that on 28.03.2001, at 11.15 p.m, the first accused along with the third accused was found transporting 735 litres of rectified spirit in a Maruti Gypsy vehicle bearing Reg. No. TSK 4931 through Sulthanbatheri - Mysore public road and the second and the fourth accused were found travelling in a motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KL 12 A 6011 as guides escorting the Gypsy vehicle, which was driven by the first accused and in which the spirit was transported.

3. During trial, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW9 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P19. MO1 to MO5 were exhibited and identified. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C and during which they denied all the incriminating circumstances and evidence brought out. As it was not a fit case to acquit the accused under Section 232 of Cr.P.C, they were directed to enter on their defence and to adduce any evidence that they may have in support thereof. However, from the side of the defence, no evidence whatsoever was adduced.

4. Finally, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides, found the first accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act and convicted him. The remaining accused were acquitted. The first accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000 for the offence for which he was found guilty. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

5. The accused carried the matter in appeal by filing Crl.Appeal No.40/2013. The learned Additional Sessions Judge -II, Kalpetta, who heard the appeal, confirmed the finding of the trial court, but modified the sentence by reducing it to simple imprisonment for three months and to a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- . In default of payment of the fine, the appellate court directed the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

6. Heard Sri.Liffy P. Francis, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Alex M. Thombra, the learned Public Prosecutor, and perused the records.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the accused is innocent of the allegations levelled against him, and both the trial court and the appellate court committed grave illegality and irregularity in appreciating the facts and evidence brought out in this case correctly. According to the learned counsel, there is absolutely no material to show that the sample of the spirit that got analysed in the chemical examination laboratory is the very same sample drawn from the contraband seized in this case. It is further pointed out that in the seizure mahazar as well as in the property list, the sample seal or the specimen impression of the seal allegedly used is nowhere provided. It was further submitted that in the copy of the forwarding note, which is a crucial document in an Abkari case, neither the sample seal nor the specimen impression of the seal allegedly used in sealing the sample bottles is provided. In short, the crux o