JUDGMENT : The appellant was convicted by the court below under Section 8 (2) of the Abkari act and sentenced thereunder to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with a default clause for simple imprisonment for two years. 2. The prosecution allegation is that on 29-08-2000 at 5.30 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of 1½ litres of arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act. 3. Before the trial court, PW1 to PW5 were examined and Exts. P1 to P8 were marked for the prosecution besides identifying MO1 and MO2. No evidence was adduced on the side of the defence. 4. Heard. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant Sri. M.H. Asif Ali has submitted that since there is no evidence before the court to prove the drawing of the sample from the contraband, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. It appears from Ext. P8 property list that the contraband as such was produced before the Court. The evidence of PW1 and other occurrence witnesses would also show that the contraband as such was seized and sealed at the spot itself. Ext. P5 is the certificate of chemical analysis which would show that one sealed bottle containing 300 ml. of the liquor was received in the laboratory. This would show that the sample was taken from the contraband at some point of time after the production of the contraband before the court. However, there is absolutely no evidence before the Court regarding the drawing of the sample from the contraband. 6. The Court in Sasidharan v. State of Kerala [2007 (1) KLT720], 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." 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. The thondi section clerk of the court was also not examined before the court to prove the drawing of the sample and sending the same to the laboratory in a tamper- proof manner. It is also to be noted that no forwarding note was marked before the court. No forwarding note is also available with the records transmitted to this Court, which would show that no forwarding note was prepared or produced before the court. Since there is no forwarding note, the tamper-proof despatch of the sample to the laboratory could not be established by the prosecution. Even otherwise, the drawing of the sample and sending the same to the Laboratory in a tamper-proof condition could not be established by the prosecution as the person who had drawn the sample was not examined by the prosecution. For the said reasons, the prosecution could not connect the link evidence between the sample analyzed in the laboratory and the contraband seized from the appellant and consequently, there cannot be any guarantee that the sample analysed in the laboratory was the sample drawn from the contraband seized from the appellant, and in the said circumstances, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. The above vital aspect was not considered by the court below while appreciating the evidence. For the said reason, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below cannot be sustained and consequently, I set aside the same. In the result, this Appeal stands allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the court below under Sec. 8 (2) of the Abkari Act and the appellant is acquitted for the said offence. The bail bond of the appellant stands discharged.