An unexplained, inordinate delay in producing seized contraband samples before the court breaks the chain of link evidence, necessitating acquittal due to the possibility of tampering and the resulting benefit of doubt.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act by the Assistant Sessions Court-II, Kozhikode as per the judgment dated 23.01.2006 in S.C. No.40/2004, which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Court-III, Kozhikode, as per judgment dated 15.02.2007 in Crl. Appeal No.107/2006. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in the said case.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 20.08.2002, in the early morning, the accused was found standing in front of his house and a bag containing 23 bottles of indian made foreign liquor meant for sale in Goa state only was found kept on the platform of a scooter parked near the accused. Moreover, in the search conducted in the house of the accused, 5 bags containing foreign liquor bottles with the labels, “ Johns Rum XXX” for sale in Goa and “ Columbia XXX Rum” for sale in Karnataka only, were seized. Thus, the accused is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and Rule 9 of the Foreign Liquor Rules.

3. During trial, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW7 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P10 and M.O.I to M.O.IV. 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. As it was not a fit case to acquit the accused under Section 232 of Cr.P.C, he was directed to enter on his defence and to adduce any evidence that he may have in support thereof. However, no evidence whatsoever was produced from the side of the accused.

4. Finally, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, and he was convicted. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years 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.107/2006 before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The learned Additional Sessions Judge- III, Kozhikode, who heard the appeal, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, the accused has preferred this revision petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, and also perused the records.

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 brought out in this case 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 based on mere surmises and conjectures. The learned counsel further contended that the search and seizure procedures were not conducted by the detecting officer in a foolproof manner, thereby leaving ample scope for manipulation and tampering. According to the learned counsel, there is inordinate, unexplained delay in producing the sample before the court, and hence, there is every possibility of tampering. According to the learned counsel, the link evidence regarding the safe custody of the contraband is snapped in this case, and