In Abkari cases, failures in documenting the seal and sampling procedure in the mahazar, or failure to affix a sample seal, creates reasonable doubt regarding the integrity of the seized contraband, warranting acquittal.

C O M M O N O R D E R

These Criminal Revision Petitions have 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 petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 55(a) and (g) of the Abkari Act by the Assistant Sessions Court, Kasaragod, as per judgment dated 08.06.2012 in S.C. No.207/2008, which was confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Court, Kasaragod, by a common judgment dated 17.02.2014 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 130/2012 and 132/2012. The revision petitioner in Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 833/2014 is the first accused and the revision petitioner in Crl.Rev.Pet. 734/2014 is the second accused in S.C. No. 207/2008.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 03.11.2006 at about 6.30 p.m., both the accused were found in possession of arrack as well as wash and other utensils for brewing arrack in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act. Thus the accused are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under sections 55(a) and 55(g) of the Abkari Act.

3. During trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and marked Exts.P1 to P15. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., during which they denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against them. Since the court found that it was not a fit case for acquittal under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C., the accused were called upon to enter upon their defence and adduce evidence, if any, in support thereof. However, no evidence was adduced from the side of the defence.

4. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found both the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 55(a) and 55(g) of the Abkari Act and convicted them thereunder. Both the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each under Sections 55(a) and 55(g) of the Abkari Act. In default of payment of fine, the accused were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, both the accused have preferred separate Criminal Appeals numbered as 130/2012 & 132/2012 before the Sessions Court, Kasaragod. The learned Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, both the accused have preferred these revision petitions.

6. Heard Sri. T. Madhu, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Smt. Anima M., the learned Public Prosecutor. The records were also perused.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the revision petitioners are wholly innocent of the allegations levelled against them and that both the trial court and the appellate court have failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. According to the learned counsel, the revision petitioners have absolutely no connection with the contraband allegedly seized in the case and have been falsely implicated on mere surmises and conjectures. It was further contended that the search and seizure procedures were not conducted 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 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 very same contraband allegedly seized in the case. On these premises, it was contended th