JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.217/2016 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. 2. The prosecution allegation is that on 28.10.2000 at 7.10 p.m., the petitioner was found in possession of 1½ litres of arrack in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act. Crime No.285/2000 of Ranni Police Station was registered under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act in connection with the above incident. After completing the investigation, the final report was filed before the court for the offence under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. After commitment, the case is presently pending as S.C.No.217/2016 before the court below. 3. The petitioner has filed this application praying for quashing Annexure-2 final report and further proceedings against petitioner in the above case. 4. Heard. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since there was inordinate delay of nearly 5 years in producing the contraband and the samples before the court, no successful prosecution against the petitioner can be sustained and consequently, Annexure-A2 final report and further proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. 6. The incident in this case was on 28.10.2000 at 7.10 p.m. Annexure-A3 certified copy of the property list would show that the contraband articles were received in the court only on 10.08.2005. This court called for the copy of the relevant page of the thondi register of the Magistrate Court concerned relating to the entry of the contraband in this case. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate transmitted the photocopy of the relevant page of the thondi register having the entry regarding the receipt of the above contraband before the court, which would show that the entry with regard to the receipt of the contraband articles in this case was made in the thondi register on 19.08.2005, even though the same was received by the court on 10.08.2005. It further appears from the copy of the said thondi register that the samples were also produced before the court along with the contraband articles on 10.08.2005. 7. The final report was filed on 29.11.2000. In the final report, it is stated that the contraband article and the samples were already produced before the court along with a forwarding note. It further appears from the copy of the said thondi register that the samples were also produced before the court along with the contraband articles on 10.08.2005. 7. The final report was filed on 29.11.2000. In the final report, it is stated that the contraband article and the samples were already produced before the court along with a forwarding note. However, Annexure-A3 copy of the property list would show that the samples and the contraband article were produced before the court only on 10.08.2005, which was nearly after five years after the date of seizure of the contraband and after the filing of the final report before the court. 8. Now the question to be considered is as to whether this court will be justified in quashing the final report and further proceedings against the petitioner due to the above said delay. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the delay can be explained only in the course of trial. 9. I may now consider as to whether there is any scope for explaining the reason for the delay in producing the contraband and the samples before the court, at the time of trial. A report dated 21.01.2017 was filed before this court by the Inspector of Police, Ranni, who is the Station House Officer of Ranni Police Station. It is stated in the said report that the seized articles were kept in the Ranni Police Station ever since the registration of the case. It is further stated in the said report that an undue delay occurred in sending the seized articles to the court. It is also stated in the report that the seized articles were produced before the court only on 10.08.2005 and that itself, after the direction by the court below. From the endorcement in the final report that the contraband and the samples had been already produced before the court, it has to be interfered that the Investigating Officer was of the belief that the samples and the contraband had been already sent to the court. The Inspector of Police, Ranny also reported that there was undue delay in sending the seized articles to the court. In view of the above reasons, there is hardly any scope for the prosecution to give explanation for the delay in producing the contraband and the samples before the court. 10. The Inspector of Police, Ranny also reported that there was undue delay in sending the seized articles to the court. In view of the above reasons, there is hardly any scope for the prosecution to give explanation for the delay in producing the contraband and the samples before the court. 10. In Ravi v. State of Kerala [ 2011(3) KLT 353 ], the Division Bench of this Court held thus:- “There is no statutory mandate under the above provision to 'forthwith” produce the properties before the Court. What is insisted on is that the seizure of the property should be forthwith reported to the Court. But that does not mean that the Detecting or Investigating Officer can produce the property leisurely, particularly when the nature and contents of the property can be convincingly established only through expert opinion obtained either in the form of chemical analysis or the report of a forensic or other expert for which the property should reach the court without unreasonable delay. Delayed production before the court of the seized property (wherever it is practicable) is likely to be frowned upon by Courts because of the possible misuse or tampering with such property while in the custody of the officer concerned. There is also the chance of such property getting misplaced.” 11. The above legal position would make it clear that the seized property must be produced before the court without unnecessary delay to avoid the possible misuse or tampering with such property while in the custody of the officer concerned. In this case, the property was kept in the Police Station. It is not stated in the report filed by the Inspector of Police, Ranny that the contraband and the samples were under the safe custody of any of the officers. On the other hand, the said report itself would state that undue delay occurred in producing the seized articles before the court. For the above said reasons, practically, there cannot be any explanation in this case for the delayed production of the contraband and the samples before the court. If the delay is for a reasonable period, the prosecution may be able to explain the reason for the delay. However, if there is very long delay as in the present case, in producing the contraband and the samples before the court, no amount of explanation can save the prosecution. If the delay is for a reasonable period, the prosecution may be able to explain the reason for the delay. However, if there is very long delay as in the present case, in producing the contraband and the samples before the court, no amount of explanation can save the prosecution. It was after nearly five years of filing the final report that the properties were produced before the court and that itself, only after getting direction from the court below. In view of the above reasons, there is no scope for submitting any explanation for the undue delay in producing the samples and the contraband before the court. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that the samples produced before the court and analysed in the laboratory were the samples drawn from the contraband seized from the petitioner. 12. The Apex Court in Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Another [ (1996) 9 SCC 766 ] held in paragraph 15 thus:- “But when the Judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. We are mindful that most of the Sessions Courts in India are under heavy pressure of workload. If the Sessions Judge is almost certain that the trial would only be an exercise in futility or a sheer waste of time, it is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings at the stage of Section 227 of the Code itself.” 13. The principle enunciated by the Apex Court in Satish Mehra(supra) can be made applicable when the High Court considers the scope of quashing the final report and further proceedings in exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 14. Having gone through the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that since there was long delay of nearly five years in producing the contraband and the samples before the court, no successful prosecution can be sustained against the petitioner. Therefore, no purpose will be served even if the prosecution against petitioner is permitted to be continued. In the said circumstances, there is no meaning in directing the petitioner to face the ordeal of the trial. Therefore, no purpose will be served even if the prosecution against petitioner is permitted to be continued. In the said circumstances, there is no meaning in directing the petitioner to face the ordeal of the trial. For the said reason, I am inclined to quash Annexure-A2 final report and further proceedings against the petitioner in S.C.No.217/2016 on the files of the court below, in exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to meet the ends of justice and accordingly, I order so. In the result, this Crl.M.C. stands allowed.