A conviction requires strong, reliable evidence linking the accused to the offense without procedural irregularities undermining the prosecution's case.

O R D E R

~~~~~~~

The Excise Inspector, Neeleswar Range, in C.C.627/97 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class, Hosdurg prosecuted the revision petitioner accusing offence under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act .

2. The prosecution case in brief is that at 4.p.m., on

20.3.1997, while PW4, a Preventive Officer attached to Kanhangad Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Squad, moving on patrol duty along with party, found the revision petitioner carrying two litres of illicit arrack in a jerry can which was marked as MO1. The revision petitioner was arrested. The contraband was seized after preparing Ext.P1 seizure mahazar wherein PWs 1 and 2 are attestors. The revision petitioner along with the contraband was produced before the Excise Office. On the basis of the report, a case was registered for which Ext.P2 occurrence report was prepared, proceeded with the investigation and after completing the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted.

3. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty. Therefore, she was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 4 were examined. Exts.P1 to P3 and MO1 were marked. After closing the evidence for the prosecution, the revision petitioner was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She advanced a plea of total denial. No defence evidence was let in. On appraisal of the evidence, the trial court arrived at a finding of guilty. Consequently, she was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.25,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for 1½ months. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, she preferred Crl.A.No.225/2001 before the Sessions Judge, Kasaragod. The learned Sessions Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 30.1.2004, while confirming the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this Revision Petition was preferred.

4. I have heard Adv. Smt.T.Sudhamani, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Perused the judgment impugned as well the evidence on record.

5. PWs 1 and 2, though admitted their signature contained in Ext.P1, would deny of having witnessed the arrest of the appellant or the seizure of the contraband. PW3, the Excise Inspector, would depose that on the basis of the report submitted by PW4, registered the case as Crime No.27/1997 for which Ext.P2 Crime and Occurrence report was prepared. He would further depose that Ext.P3 is the report of the chemical examiner and that Ext.P2 was prepared by Preventive Officer, Sri.P.Chathu, whose handwriting and signature is known to PW3. In cross- examination he would admit that Ext.P2 was received before the court on 24.3.1997 and that the properties were produced before the court only on 8.4.1997.

6. Carefully going through the above evidence, I am afraid to sustain the conviction and sentence because there is little material to connect the revision petitioner with Ext.P3 report of the chemical examiner. There is evidence lacking as to who forwarded the sample for chemical examination or as to how Ext.P3 was obtained. Though it was deposed by PW3 that Ext.P2 was prepared by the Preventive Officer it was seen signed by the Excise Inspector. There is no explanation for the delay of three days in producing Ext.P2 before the court. Neither PW3 nor PW4 would depose as to where were the material objects and the sample till it was produced before the court on 8.4.1997. It is crucial to note that Ext.P1 itself was produced before court on 8.4.1997. No explanation for the delay. In the above circumstance, I find that the evidence on record is not at all reliable to come to a conclusion of the guilt of the revision petitioner. The courts below had not properly appreciated the evidence. The revision petitioner is entitled to an order of acquittal.

7. In the result, the Revision P