In cases under the Abkari Act, the failure of the prosecution to affix the specimen seal on the seizure mahazar creates a reasonable doubt regarding the identity and integrity of the seized sample, entitling the accused to an acquittal.

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 Sections 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act by the Assistant Sessions Court, Koyilandy, as per judgment dated 07.06.2007 in S.C. No.985/2004, which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Court, (Adhoc-I)Kozhikode, by judgment dated 25.09.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.527/2007.

The revision petitioner is the sole accused in the said case.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 24.10.2001 at about

04:00 p.m., the accused was found in possession and transporting 1 litre 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 PW8 and marked Exts.P1 to P7. 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 against him in evidence. From the side of the accused, no evidence whatsoever was adduced.

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 8(1) of the Abkari Act and convicted him 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/- 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 three months.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.527/2007 before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. 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. Naveen T, the learned 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 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 was recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused and, therefore, the impugned judgment warrants no interference. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that all mandatory procedures relating to the seizure