Failure to ensure the integrity of a sample through unexplained production delays and the absence of a specimen seal on the seizure mahazar breaks the chain of custody, warranting acquittal due to 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 offence punishable under Section 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act by the Assistant Sessions Court, Kasaragod as per the judgment dated 14.07.2010 in S.C. No.69/2006, which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Court (Ad Hoc)-I, Kasaragod, as per judgment dated 10.08.2011 in Crl. Appeal No.247/2010. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in the said case.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 21.07.2004 at about

7.30 a.m., the accused was found possessing and transporting 900 packets, each containing 100 ml of Karnataka-made arrack, in an autorickshaw bearing Registration No. KL-14-C-281 near Pallamkode Bridge in Adhur Village, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act. Thus, the accused is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act.

3. During trial, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW6 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P8(c). 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 offence punishable under Section 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act, and he was convicted. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years 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 six months.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.247/2010 before the Sessions Court, Kasaragod. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Challenging the said appellate judgment, the accused has filed the present revision petition.

6. Heard Sri. M. Sasindran, 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. The learned counsel further contended that the search and seizure procedures were not conducted by the detecting officer in a foolproof manner, thereby leaving ample scope for manipulation and tampering. According to the learned counsel, the absence of the specimen seal in the seizure mahazar itself creates a serious doubt regarding the sanctity of the seizure and the possibility of subsequent tampering cannot be ruled out. Hence, there is no assurance that the contraband analyzed in the laboratory was the same as that allegedly seized in the case. The learned counsel further urged that there is inordinate, unexplained delay in producing the sample be