Abdul Kareem vs State Of Kerala And Anr

The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the court below under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act.

The prosecution allegation is that on 8.8.2001 at about 5.30 p.m., the appellant and the other accused were found in possession of 1.5 litres of

arrack for the purpose of sale, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act.

Heard.

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since no forwarding note was produced and marked in this case, the appellant is entitled to

benefit of doubt.

It appears that no forwarding note was produced or marked in this case.

In Sasidharan v. State of Kerala [2007 (1) KLT 720], the Court observed thus:

“Without the link evidence of actual sampling by the concerned clerk of the court by drawing sample from the can and sending the same in a

sealed packet to the Chemical Examiner with a specimen seal sent separately for tamper proof despatch, the Prosecution cannot be held to have

brought home the offence against the appellant.â€​

In Ravi v. State of Kerala [2011 (3) KLT 353], the Division Bench of this Court held that the prosecution in a case under the Abkari Act could

succeed only if it is shown that the contraband liquor which was allegedly seized from the accused ultimately reached the hands of the chemical

examiner by change of hands in a tamper proof condition.

Since no forwarding note was produced and marked in this case, the prosecution could not establish the tamper â€" proof despatch of the sample to

the laboratory. In the said circumstances, there is no satisfactory link evidence to show that it was the same sample which was drawn from the

contraband seized from the appellant, which eventually reached the hands of the chemical examiner in a tamper â€" proof condition by change of

hands. In the said circumstances, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.

In the result, this Appeal stands allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the court below and the appellant stands acquitted. The

bail bond of the appellant stands discharged.