Failure to provide a specimen seal of the contraband in the seizure mahazar and the forwarding note breaks the link evidence between the alleged seizure and the chemical analysis, entitling the accused to an acquittal based on reasonable doubt.

ORDER

Dated this the 1^st day of June, 2026 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, Payyannur, as per judgment dated 06.09.2005 in S.C. No.400/2001, which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Court, Thalassery, by judgment dated 29.10.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.582/2005. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in the said case.

2. The prosecution case is that on 19.09.1998 at about

10.30 a.m., while the excise officials were on patrol duty, they found the accused in possession of 4.5 litres of illicit arrack in a plastic can. On seeing the excise party, the accused allegedly fled from the scene and could not be apprehended. The excise officials subsequently seized the plastic can, which contained liquor and was abandoned by the accused. Thus, the accused is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act.

3. During trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Exts.P1 to P8. MO1 and MO2 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. However, no defence evidence was adduced.

4. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and convicted him thereunder. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In default of payment of the fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.582/2005 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery. 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. M.Sasindran, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri.Jayakrishnan U, 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. 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. It was also submitted that there is no satisfactory link evidence to establish that the contraband allegedly seized in this case ultimately reached the chemical examiner’s laboratory for analysis. According to the learned counsel, the absence of the specimen seal in the seizure mahazar itself create