Strict adherence to procedural requirements is essential to ensure the integrity of evidence in criminal cases; failure to do so leads to reasonable doubt.

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 in S.C No.1331/2014 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kozhikode as per the judgment dated 30.10.2015, which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court for trial of Marad Cases), Kozhikode, as per judgment dated 06.02.2016 in Crl. Appeal No.441/2015. The revision petitioner is the 2nd accused in the said case.

2. The prosecution case is that on 03.06.2014, at 07.30 p.m., at Karuvattoorkara in Kozhikode Taluk, both the accused were found possessing and transporting 30 litres of arrack in an auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KL-11–X-799 for the purpose of sale in violation of the provisions of the Abkari Act . Thus, the accused are 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 PW8 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P10. MO1 to MO5 were exhibited and identified. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, both the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., during which they denied all the incriminating circumstances and brought out against them in evidence. As it was not a fit case to acquit the accused under Section 232 of Cr.P.C, both of them were directed to enter on their defence and to adduce any evidence that they may have in support thereof. From the side of the defence Ext.D1 was marked.

4. Finally, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides, found both the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 8 (2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act and convicted them. The accused were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each for the offence for which they were found guilty. In default of payment of fine, the accused were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

5. Both the accused carried the matter in appeal by filing separate criminal appeals numbered as Crl.Appeal No.441/2015 and 442/2015. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, who heard both the appeal, confirmed the finding and the sentence passed by the trial court by a common judgment. Aggrieved by the same, the second accused has came up with this revision petition.

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

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/second accused contended that the procedures relating to seizure, sampling, and sealing were not strictly complied with in the present case. It was further argued that there is no assurance that the sample analyzed in the Chemical Examination Laboratory was the very same sample allegedly drawn from the arrack said to have been seized. In support of this contention, the learned counsel pointed out that in the copy of the seizure mahazar furnished to the accused under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., and marked during trial as Ext.D1, neither the sample seal nor the specimen impression of the seal purportedly used for sealing the sample bottle is present. According to the counsel, this clearly indicates that the specimen impression of the seal or the sample seal was not affixed on the seizure mahazar at the spot of detection, thereby leaving room for subsequent tampering or manipulation. The learned counsel furthe