IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 627 of 2000() ----------------------------- CRA.148/1997 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA CC.184/1995 of JDUL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAMANKARY .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------- AMBI, S/O.SREEDHARAN, KOCHUPARAMBIL VEEDU, KUNNANKARYMURI, VELIYANADU. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.AMJITH ALI. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No. 627 of 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of March, 2008. ORDER Petitioner was tried for an offence punishable under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act on the charge that he was found in possession of 3 ½ litres of illicit arrack at about 3.10 p.m. on October 2, 1994. The trial court found him guilty and he was accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months. The said order of conviction and sentence was confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Court. Hence this revision petition. 2. The prosecution case in brief was that Pw.4, the Excise Inspector, attached to Kuttanad Excise Range and his patrol party had found the petitioner at Veliyanad with a white jerry can containing some liquid and a glass at about 3.10. PM on October 2, 1994. On suspicion the liquid in the jerry can was tasted and smelled by Pw.4. By taste and smell he was convinced that it was illicit arrack. According to Pw.4 the contraband was seized and about 180 ML. of the liquor was taken as sample in the presence of the witnesses. The accused was arrested. When the party was about to leave, 6 people came to the scene. They took away the accused from the custody of Pw.4 . In connection with the above incident CC.9/95 was pending before the same court at the time when the Crl.RP.627/2000 2 trial of this case was going on. Pw.1 the Preventive Officer who accompanied Pw.4 also spoke about the detection of the crime and seizure of the contraband etc. Pws.2 and 3 turned hostile to the prosecution. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the above case was foisted against the petitioner by the Excise officials out of vengeance since he along with the local people had been agitating against the excise officials for carrying out illegal raids in the residences in the locality. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that Ext.P2 occurrence report does not contain the date on which it had been prepared. It is also seen from the endorsement on Ext.P2 that the said occurrence report had reached the court only on October 6, 1994. The prosecution had not given any explanation for the delay in forwarding Ext.P2 to the court . Yet another aspect which has been highlighted by the learned counsel is that Pw.4 in Ext.P2 had mentioned that accused had run away after his arrest. But in chief examination he had a totally different version. Pw.4 stated that accused was rescued or got released from custody by 6 other people. These aspects have been highlighted by t he learned counsel in support of his contention that the present prosecution had been launched by the Excise Officials out of vengeance. 4. There is considerable force in the contention raised by the petitioner that the prosecution had not given any explanation for the delay in forwarding Ext.P2 to the court. It is also seen from Ext.P3 Crl.RP.627/2000 3 report of the Chemical Examiner that the sample was received by the Analyst only on January 17, 1995 from the court. There is no evidence on record to show where the sample bottle had been kept till it was forwarded to the Analyst or whether it had remained in proper custody without any chance of being tampered with. The prosecution had not adduced any evidence in this regard. 5. Having given my anxious consideration to the entire facts and circumstances and particularly the evidence let in by the prosecution, I am of the view that this is a fit case in which the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of doubt . Therefore the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner is set aside. Crl.R.P is allowed. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.