In Abkari cases, the failure to record a specimen seal on the seizure mahazar and the non-production of a forwarding note creates a fatal gap in the chain of custody, warranting acquittal as the prosecution fails to prove the identity of the contraband analyzed in the laboratory.

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 Principle Assistant Sessions Court, Kollam, as per judgment dated 19.03.2007 in S.C. No.1086/2003, which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Court-II, Kollam, by judgment dated 19.03.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.204/2007. The revision petitioner herein is the sole accused in the said case.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 27.08.1997 at about 11:50 a.m., the accused was found in possession of five polythene covers, each containing 150 ml 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 8(1) of the Abkari Act.

3. During trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW4 and marked Exts.P1 to P5. MO1 to MO3 were also identified and marked. 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.

However, no documentary evidence was produced by the defence.

4. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act and convicted him thereunder. 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, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.204/2007 before the Sessions Court, Kollam. 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. T. R. Aswas, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri. Sanal P. Raj, 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. 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 prem