Judgment : 1. The accused in S.C.No.903/2000 of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Kasaragod, who stands convicted under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of 1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six more months, has come up in appeal. 2. The prosecution case is that on 23.09.1999 at 06.00 pm, the appellant was found in possession of 125 packets, each containing 100 ml. of arrack produced in the State of Karnataka, on the Kalanad-Chattanjal public road at Kalanad in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act. 3. PW1, Circle Inspector of Excise, Kasaragod, detected the offence and allegedly placed the appellant under arrest. The contraband was seized through Ext.P1 mahazar. Sample from three packets were drawn. He allegedly reached the office with the appellant, contraband, sample and records, and registered O.R.No.12/1999, through Ext.P2 occurrence report. On the next day, he handed over the appellant, material objects and the records to PW5, Excise Inspector, Kasaragod. PW5 registered C.R.No.46/1999 through Ext.P3. He prepared Ext.P4 property list and produced the properties before the court. He filed Ext.P5 forwarding note. The appellant was produced before court. On obtaining Ext.P6 certificate of chemical analysis, the complaint was filed. 4. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exts.P1 to P8 were marked. MO1 and MO2 series were identified. On the side of the appellant, Exts.D1 and D2 were marked. The court below found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him as aforesaid. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there is no evidence to show that the appellant was placed under arrest in this case. It has been pointed out that either the arrest memo or the remand application was not produced and marked to prove that the appellant was placed under arrest as alleged by the prosecution. 6. The fact that the appellant was placed under arrest from the scene of occurrence was challenged by the appellant. The case of the appellant is that he was taken into custody by the Excise people from his house. 6. The fact that the appellant was placed under arrest from the scene of occurrence was challenged by the appellant. The case of the appellant is that he was taken into custody by the Excise people from his house. On going through the evidence and records, it has come out that neither the arrest memo nor the remand report has been produced and marked. Even though PW1 has stated in evidence that the appellant was placed under arrest, no arrest memo is available. In cross examination, PW1 has stated that the arrest intimation was also given. Even the copy of such intimation has not been produced. The prosecution could have produced at least the remand report in order to show that the appellant was placed under arrest. Especially when the appellant has got a specific contention that the appellant was taken into custody from his house, the prosecution ought to have produced some documentary evidence to prove that the appellant was arrested from the spot with the contraband. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant is relying on the decision in Ramankutty Vs. Excise Inspector, Chelannur Range [2013 (3) KHC 308], wherein it has been held by a learned Single Judge of this Court that the arrest memo is a crucial document to be produced by the prosecution to prove the factum of arrest. Especially when the arrest and place of arrest are challenged, the prosecution in this case ought to have produced documentary evidence to prove the same. Matters being so, I am of the view that the conviction entered by the court below as against the appellant is bad in law, and is only to be set aside. In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the court below are set aside. The appellant is acquitted. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled and he is set at liberty forthwith.