The prosecution's failure to prove proper sampling and sealing procedures under the Abkari Act led to the acquittal of the accused.

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 judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 8 (2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act by the Assistant Sessions Court, Alappuzha as per the judgment dated 28.02.2015 in S.C No.499/2009, which was confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Alappuzha, as per judgment dated 07.06.2016 in Crl. Appeal No.78/2015. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in the said case.

2. The prosecution case is that on 04.11.2005, at 9.15 a.m., on a public road in front of the house of one Thaykoottathil Damodaran, situated about 1 km away from Sreerangam Jn., the accused was found in possession of 5 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 PW4 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P8. MO1 was 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. From the side of the accused, one witness was examined as DW1. Apart from the oral evidence of DW1, no evidence whatsoever was produced from the side of the accused.

4. Finally, the learned 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 rigorous 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 rigorous imprisonment for six months.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred an appeal. The learned Sessions Judge, while confirming the finding of guilt, modified the sentence. For the offence punishable under Section 8 (2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act , the sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months.

6. Heard Sri. Govind, 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 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 arrack that was analyzed in the chemical examination laboratory is the very same sample drawn from the contraband seized in this case. The learned counsel pointed out that in the seizure Mahazar prepared contemporaneous with the detection of the contraband, 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 are patent flaws in the manner in which the seizure and sampling procedures were carried out in this case rendering no guarantee that the sample