Prosecution must establish robust evidentiary connections regarding seizure and sampling in contraband cases, or risk acquittal.

O R D E R

This criminal revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 8 (2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act by the Additional Assistant Sessions Court-III, Kozhikode as per the judgment dated 12.08.2015 in S.C.No.647/2014, which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode, as per judgment dated 31.08.2016 in Crl. Appeal No. 341/2015. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in the said case.

2. The prosecution case is that on 10.07.2013, at 12.15 p.m., the accused was found in possession of 6 liters of arrack for the purpose of sale in violation of the provisions contained under the Abkari Act . Thus, the accused is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 8 (2) r/w 8(1) of the .

3. During trial, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW6 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P7. MO1 to MO3 were exhibited and identified. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the 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 accused, no evidence whatsoever was adduced.

4. Finally, the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 8 (2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act and convicted him. The 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, the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.

5. The accused carried the matter in appeal by filing Crl.Appeal No.341/2015. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, who heard the appeal, confirmed the finding and sentence passed by the trial court.

6. Heard Sri. M. P. Prasanth, 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 innocent of the allegations levelled against him and that he was falsely implicated in this case. According to the learned counsel, the accused had no connection whatsoever with the contraband allegedly seized in this case, and he was implicated on the basis of surmises and conjectures. According to the learned counsel in the case at hand, there is absolutely no material to show that the sample of the arrack that got analyzed in the laboratory is the very same sample drawn from the contraband seized in this case. It is pointed out that, in the seizure mahazar, the sample seal or specimen impression of the seal allegedly used is nowhere affixed. In short, the crux of the argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that there is patent flaws in the manner in which the seizure and sampling procedures were carried out in this case rendering no guarantee that the sample produced before the court as well as reached for examination in the chemical examination laboratory is the same sample collected from the spot of detection. 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 warrant no interference.