In Abkari Act prosecutions, the failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody for seized contraband, particularly the failure to authenticate sample transportation via official witnesses, renders the prosecution's case insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections

397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against the revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 55(g) and 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act by the Assistant Sessions Court, Nedumangad as per the judgment dated 16.11.2013 in S.C. No.1435/2008, which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Court-V, Thiruvananthapuram, as per judgment dated 27.06.2015 in Crl. Appeal No.465/2013.

The revision petitioner is the sole accused in the said case.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 06.05.2006 at 2.00 p.m., the accused was found in possession of wash and other materials for distillation of arrack and engaged in illicit distillation of arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act. Thus, the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 55(g) and 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act.

3. During trial, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW4 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P6. 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, no evidence whatsoever was produced from the side of the accused.

4. Finally, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 55(g) and 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act, and he was convicted. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act. In default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. In view of Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code, no separate sentence was awarded for the offence punishable under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.465/2013 before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Challenging the same, the accused has filed the present revision petition.

6. Heard Sri.Ranju Mohan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri. G. Sudheer, the learned Public Prosecutor, also perused the records.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is wholly innocent of the allegations levelled against him and that both the trial court and the appellate court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. According to the learned counsel, the revision petitioner has absolutely no connection with the contraband allegedly seized in the case and has been falsely implicated based on mere surmises and conjectures. It was further contended that the procedures relating to seizure and sampling were not carried out in a foolproof and tamper-proof manner, thereby leaving room for possible tampering. According to the learned counsel, it would be unsafe to sustain the conviction solely based on the testimony of the detecting officer in the facts and circumstances of the case. It was further argued that the prosecution failed to establish the necessary link evidence to prove that the sample allegedly drawn from the place of detection was the very same sample that ultim