Failure to document the specimen seal in the seizure mahazar and lack of evidence regarding the sealing/sampling procedure creates a reasonable doubt as to the integrity of the contraband, necessitating the acquittal of the accused in Abkari cases.

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 order of sentence passed against the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act by the Assistant Sessions Court, Kasaragod, as per judgment dated 16.08.2010 in S.C. No.218/2008, which was confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Court, Kasaragod, by judgment dated 24.01.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.280/2010. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in the said case.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 11.12.2005 at about 7.30 p.m. on Erappakkatta - Chettekkal Harijan colony road, Bela village, the accused was found possessing 2.5 litres of arrack, for sale, 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, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 and marked Exts.P1 to P9(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 in evidence against him. Since the court found that it was not a fit case for acquittal under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C., the accused was called upon to enter upon his defence and adduce evidence, if any, in support thereof. On the side of the defence, DW1 was examined. But no evidence whatsoever was adduced from the side of the accused.

4. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and convicted him thereunder. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence for which he was convicted. 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.280/2010 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, the accused has preferred the present revision petition.

6. Heard Smt. Reshma E., the learned Amicus Curiae and Smt.

Anima M., the learned Public Prosecutor. The records were also perused.

7. The learned Amicus Curiae 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 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 that the revision petitioner is entitled to an order of acquittal.

8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is ample evidence on record to establish that the contraband involved in the case