Failure to provide a specimen seal impression on the seizure mahazar and the forwarding note creates a reasonable doubt regarding the identity and integrity of the seized contraband, warranting the acquittal of the accused.

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, Vadakara, as per judgment dated 14.11.2007 in S.C. No.281/2005, which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Court, Vadakara, by judgment dated 07.12.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.1035/2007. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in the said case.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 18.01.2004 at about 5.15 p.m., the accused was found in possession of 3 litres of arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act. Thus, the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections

55(a) and 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act.

3. During trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and marked Exts.P1 to P7. MO1 was exhibited and identified. 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. However, 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 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act and convicted him. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused 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.1035/2007 before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadakara, 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. P.V. Anoop, the learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri. U.Jayakrishnan, 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. According to the learned counsel, the absence of the specimen seal in the seizure mahazar and forwarding note itself creates serious doubt regarding the sanctity of the seizure, and the possibility of subsequent tampering cannot be ruled out. On these premises, it was urged 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 the accused and, therefore, the impugned judgment warrant