Kerala High Court Acquits Accused in Arrack Possession Case Due to Lack of Evidence

Background

The case involved two accused individuals who were convicted by the Additional Sessions Court (Abkari Cases) in Kottarakkara, Kerala, for offenses under Sections 55(a) and 55(i) of the Abkari Act. The accused were found in possession of 35 liters of arrack, a prohibited substance, on June 26, 1999.

Arguments

The accused appealed the conviction, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish a proper chain of custody for the seized arrack. They highlighted the following issues: - Delay in the production of the seized properties, including the sample, before the court - Lack of information about the nature and description of the seal used on the bottle containing the sample - Absence of evidence regarding the custody of the sample during the period from July 28, 1999, to May 2, 2000, when it was sent to the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The Kerala High Court examined the issues raised by the accused and found that the prosecution had indeed failed to establish the link between the seized arrack and the sample analyzed by the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory. The court noted that: - The unexplained delay in the production of the seized properties before the court raised concerns about the possibility of tampering with the sample. - The seizure mahazar (report) did not contain the details of the seal used on the bottle, and the specimen of the seal was not produced in court or forwarded to the laboratory for verification. - The custody of the sample during the extended period between its seizure and analysis was not satisfactorily explained, leaving room for the possibility of the sample being changed or tampered with.

Decision

The Kerala High Court, in its judgment, held that the prosecution had failed to establish the link between the seized arrack and the sample analyzed by the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory. Consequently, the court acquitted the accused of the offenses under Sections 55(a) and 55(i) of the Abkari Act, setting them at liberty.

The judgment highlights the importance of maintaining a proper chain of custody and providing adequate evidence to connect the seized contraband with the sample analyzed in order to secure a conviction in such cases.