JUDGMENT :- N.K. Balakrishnan, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant for offence punishable under Sec.8(1) r/w 8(2) of Abkari Act. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay Rs.1,00,000/-as fine and in default to undergo R.I. for 2 years. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.10.1997 at 5.45 PM, the appellant was found in possession a plastic can containing 2 = litres of arrack. He was found at a place near Government Ayurveda Dispensary at Vettiyar on the side of Pandalam-Mavelikara road. PW3, the Preventive Officer intercepted him. The can was examined. By smell and taste, it was identified to be illicit liquor. Sample of 375ml was taken from out of it. It was sealed. The plastic can containing the residue was also sealed. Ext.P1 seizure mahazar was prepared. It was attested by the witnesses. The accused was arrested. The contraband article and the accused were taken to the office. A crime report was prepared on the next day morning. The accused, properties and the report were produced before the Inspector. On 31.10.1997 itself, the accused was produced before the learned Magistrate along with the remand report and crime report. The investigation was conducted by PW6 and final report was filed. 3. PW1 to PW6 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. MO1, the residue contained in the plastic can was also marked. The court below accepted the prosecution case and found the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was in jail for the period from 28.12.2002 till 14.1.2005, on which day the judgment was pronounced by the appellate court. He was granted bail by this Court on 18.1.2005. Learned counsel also submits that the appellant is very much aggrieved by the verdict of conviction and that is why the conviction itself is challenged and not confining the argument to the sentence imposed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is absolutely no legal evidence to find the appellant guilty. PW3, the Preventive Officer has given evidence that the accused was found at the time and place as stated earlier carrying a plastic can containing in it 2= litres of arrack. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is absolutely no legal evidence to find the appellant guilty. PW3, the Preventive Officer has given evidence that the accused was found at the time and place as stated earlier carrying a plastic can containing in it 2= litres of arrack. He also stated that 375ml was taken out of it for sample and that sample as well as the plastic can containing the residue were sealed. Ext.P1 is the mahazar prepared for that purpose. Learned counsel submits that though it was stated in Ext.P1 that the sample and MO1 plastic can were sealed then and there, it was no where stated that what was the seal affixed nor does Ext.P1 show the specimen impression of the seal affixed on MO1 and the sample bottle. Ext.P1 was produced before the court only on 17.9.1999. It is true that the accused was produced before court on 31.10.1997 along with crime report, Ext.P2. Ext.P2 was prepared only on 31.10.1997. PW3 states that there was complete power cut during the night of 30.10.1997 and so, Ext.P2 could be prepared only on 31.10.1997. Even if that explanation is accepted still, according to the learned counsel, there is no mention in Ext.P2 also that MO1 and the sample bottle were affixed with any label contained the signatures of the accused and the witnesses. When Exts.P1 and P2 do not show the factum of affixing of label on MO1 and the sample, PW3 cannot develop his case by giving a statement in evidence. Not only that though PW3 had deposed in evidence that labels were affixed on MO1 and the sample bottle, that label was not shown to the court nor was any question put regarding that label by the prosecution. Learned counsel submits that had there been a label on MO1 containing the signatures of the accused and the witnesses, certainly that would have been put to the accused and the witnesses. That was not done. Another important aspect, according to the learned counsel, is the absence of specimen impression of the seal on the seizure mahazar and the property list. Curiously enough, copy of the forwarding note was also not marked. It is also important to note that PW6, the Investigating Officer has confessed that he did not see the seal alleged to have been used to seal MO1 and the sample bottle. Curiously enough, copy of the forwarding note was also not marked. It is also important to note that PW6, the Investigating Officer has confessed that he did not see the seal alleged to have been used to seal MO1 and the sample bottle. There is a duty cast on the investigating officer to verify the same. It is also not in evidence as to what happened to the copy of the forwarding note and why it was not marked. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there are vitiating circumstances regarding arrest of the accused also. The arrest memo and the inspection memo which are used to be produced and marked in evidence are not seen produced or marked in this case. No specific question was put regarding those aspects. The prosecution did not bother to produce and mark the same. Absence of the specimen impression of the seal itself may not be a ground to doubt the prosecution case, but considering the totality of the circumstances that also would assume much relevance because PW6 himself says that he had no occasion to see the seal used to seal MO1 and the sample bottle. Ext.P3, the property list though was produced before the court on 31.10.1997 does not show that MO1 and the sample bottle were affixed with the labels containing the signatures of the accused and of the witnesses. Though it was stated by PW3 that a report was prepared and submitted by him to the Excise Inspector when he handed over the thondy articles to him, that report was not produced nor was a copy seen in the file maintained by them. 6. Graver the crime, greater should be the degree of proof required. The prosecution should not have rest content without producing the relevant documents and not following the procedure correctly. There is no document to show what was the seal used by PW3 to seal the sample and MO1. The seizure mahazar (Ext.P1) was produced before the court only on 17.9.1999. Considering all the aspects, it has to be said that the accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. Hence, the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are to be set aside. In the result, this Crl.A. is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are set aside. The appellant is acquitted and he is set at liberty. Hence, the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are to be set aside. In the result, this Crl.A. is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are set aside. The appellant is acquitted and he is set at liberty. Bail bond executed by him will stand cancelled.