In Abkari prosecutions, the failure to affix sample seal impressions on the seizure mahazar creates reasonable doubt regarding the integrity and identity of the sample, necessitating acquittal when the prosecution fails to establish a foolproof chain of custody.

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 55(g) of the Abkari Act by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Payyannur, as per judgment dated 20.03.2013 in S.C. No.191/2006, which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Court-III, Thalassery, by judgment dated 12.07.2019 in Criminal Appeal No.141 of 2013. The revision petitioner herein is the sole accused in the said case.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 14.06.2003 at about

03:30 p.m., the accused was found in possession of wash in a plastic pot of 10 litres for the purpose of brewing arrack, on a lane which originates from on the lane going towards west from Pilathara- Pazhayangadi public road in Cheruthazham amsom, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act. Thus, the accused is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act.

3. During trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW4 and marked Exts.P1 to P9. 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.

4. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act and convicted him thereunder. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.141/2013 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery. The learned Additional 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 Sri. V.N. Ramesan Nambisan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Smt. M. Anima, the learned Public Prosecutor. The records were also perused.

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 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. 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 analysed 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 was recov