The judgment establishes that unexplained delays and inconsistencies in evidence can lead to reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittal.

JUDGMENT

The appellant herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Section 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act (for short “the Act”) in S.C. No. 683 of 2005 of the Court of Session, Palakkad. He faced trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Palakkad, on the allegation that at about 12.15 p.m. on26.06.2003, he was found possessing two litres of arrack. The offence was detected by the Circle Inspector of Excise, Chittur. He arrested the accused on the spot, and seized the contraband article as per a mahazar. On the basis of the arrest and seizure made by him, he registered the crime and occurrence report at the Circle Office.He produced the accused and the properties at the Excise Range Office where an Excise Inspector re-registered the crime. Another Excise Inspector conducted investigation, and submitted final report -3- in court.

2. The accused appeared before the learned trial Judge, and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him.The prosecution examined six witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P8 documents in the trial court. The MO1 and MO2 properties were also identified during trial.

3. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and projected a defence of total denial.He did not adduce any evidence in defence.

4. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 16.08.2006, the accused has come up in appeal.

5. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials, I find something suspicious in the prosecution case as regards analysis of the sample involved. PW1 is the Circle Inspector who detected the offence, and PW2 is the Preventive Officer who assisted him. These two witnesses have given evidence regarding the arrest of the accused, and the seizure of a bottle allegedly containing arrack. The crucial question is whether the liquid therein was identified as arrack. Both the witnesses stated that the sample was collected from the total quantity of arrack, and it was sent for analysis. The crime was first registered at the Circle Office by PW1, and it was later re-registered by PW6 at the Excise Range Office.

6. Ext.P5 report of analysis shows that the sample was received at the laboratory only on 19.09.2003. The detection in this case was made on -5- 26.06.2003. The report of analysis shows that the analysis was made in October, 2004. The report refers to a letter dated 23.07.2003 from the court of the learned Magistrate, Chittur, and the sample was taken to the laboratory by one Excise Guard, Rajeev. Though the sample was sent from the court as early as on 23.07.2003, it reached the laboratory only in September, 2003. There is no explanation for this delay. Though the sample reached the laboratory in September, 2003, it was analysed only in October 2004. For this delay of one year also, there is no explanation. These are all suspicious aspects, the benefit of which must go to the accused.

7. PW6 stated that he received the properties at the Range Office after two days, and he does not know in whose custody the properties were for two days. PW1 stated that it was produced at the Range office on the date of detection -6- itself. The forwarding note contains the specimen of the seal affixed on the sample. But nobody has explained what seal was affixed on the sample. The detecting officer is expected to tell the court that he had affixed his personal seal on the sample, and also tell the court what seal it is. 

Of course, it is true that the forwarding note contains the seal, but PW1 has not stated that it is his personal seal. This is also an infirmity affecting the prosecution case. In view of the serious doubts regarding the analysis of sample due to the unexplained delay at two stages, I feel it inappropriate and unjust to find the accused guilty.

In the