In Abkari cases, the failure to produce or mark the forwarding note in evidence constitutes a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case, as it prevents the establishment of an unbroken chain of custody for the contraband forwarded for chemical analysis.

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 (1) of the Abkari Act by the Assistant Sessions Court, Hosdurg, as per judgment dated 09.07.2012 in S.C. No.271/2008, which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc-III), Kasaragod, by judgment dated 27.08.2013 in Criminal Appeal No.161/2012. The revision petitioner herein is the sole accused in the said case. 2. The prosecution case is that, on 21.12.2007 at about 07:00 p.m., the accused was found in possession of 10 litres of arrack, 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 (1) of the Abkari Act.

3. During trial, the prosecution had examined five witnesses as PW1 to PW5 and marked Exts.P1 to P10. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., during which she denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against her. Since the court found that it was not a fit case for acquittal under Section 232 of the

2026:KER:36637 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 8(2) r/w (1) of the Abkari Act and convicted her thereunder. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, she 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.161/2012 before the Additional Sessions Court, Kasaragod. 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. Nireesh Mathew, 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 her and that both the trial court and the appellate court failed

2026:KER:36637 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. It was further submitted that the copy of the forwarding note, which is a crucial document in an Abkari case, is not marked in this case, and the same is fatal to the prosecution. 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 recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of t