The court found that failure to follow proper procedures in seizure and sampling of evidence led to an inability to affirm the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt.

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 judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 58 of the Abkari Act by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Chengannur as per the judgment dated 17.07.2009 in S.C.No.485/2005, which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mavelikkara, as per judgment dated 08.11.2010 in Crl. Appeal No.335/2009. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in the said case.

2. The prosecution case is that on 05.10.2003, at 05.30 p.m., the accused was found in possession of 2.750 liters of illicit liquor for the purpose of sale in the hotel run by him, bearing No.6/149, located at Angadical Muri in Chengannur municipality. Thus, the accused is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 58 of Abkari Act .

3. During trial, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW5 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P9. MO1 to MO4 series were exhibited and identified. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., during which he denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out against him in evidence. As it was not a fit case to acquit the accused under Section 232 of Cr.P.C, he was directed to enter on his defence and to adduce any evidence that he 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 accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 58 of Abkari Act and convicted him. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence for which he was found guilty. In default of payment of the fine, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

5. The accused carried the matter in appeal by filing Crl.Appeal No.335/2009. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mavelikkara, who heard the appeal, confirmed the finding and the sentence imposed on the accused by the trial court.

6. Heard Sri. K. Jayaraj, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt.Maya M. N., the learned Public Prosecutor, and also perused the records.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the accused is totally 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. According to the learned counsel, there is absolutely no material to show that the sample of the illicit liquor that got analyzed in the chemical examination laboratory is the very same sample drawn from the contraband seized in this case. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further pointed out that there are patent flaws in the manner in which the seizure and sampling procedures were carried out, as well as in the despatch of the sample from the court to the chemical examination laboratory, where the same was finally analyzed. Hence, highlighting some procedural latches, the revision petitioner sought interference in the impugned judgment.

8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that all the procedural formalities to avoid future allegations of manipulation and tampering were scrupulously complied with in this case, and hence the impugned judgment requires no interference.

9. A perusal of the record reveals that, in order to prove the charge levelled against the accused, the prosecution