JUDGMENT : The appellant is the third accused in the case S.C.No.259/2006 on the file of the Court of Session, Palakkad. The appeal is filed assailing the conviction entered and sentence passed against him under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, 1077. 2. The prosecution case is as follows: On 20.03.2000, at about 00.15 hours, the Sub Inspector, Walayar police station was inspecting the vehicles at the road in front of Kanjikode Panchayat Office. The lorry bearing registration number KA-01-5248 was not stopped there. The police party followed the lorry in the police jeep. At 00.20 hours, at the Hospital Junction at Kanjikode, the police party intercepted the lorry and inspected it. They found sacks containing onion kept in the lorry. Among those sacks, they found 202 cans, each having the capacity of 35 litres, which contained spirit. The Sub Inspector took three samples of liquid from each can and seized the cans containing the spirit and the samples and other articles and also the vehicle as per Ext.P1 mahazar. The first accused was the driver and the second accused was the cleaner of the lorry. Along with them, the appellant, the third accused, was also found in the cabin of the lorry. The Sub Inspector arrested them. It is alleged that the accused possessed and transported spirit in violation of the provisions contained in the Abkari Act and the rules thereunder. 3. The first and the second accused were absconding at the time of the trial of the case. The appellant, the third accused, faced trial. He pleaded not guilty to the charge framed by the court under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. 4. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and marked Exts.P1 to P6 and MO1 series. No evidence was adduced by the appellant. The trial court found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. 4A. Heard Sri.Nireesh Mathew, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.M.N.Maya, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the records. 5. PW1 is the Sub Inspector who detected the alleged offence. He has given evidence regarding the occurrence almost in tune with the prosecution case. 4A. Heard Sri.Nireesh Mathew, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.M.N.Maya, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the records. 5. PW1 is the Sub Inspector who detected the alleged offence. He has given evidence regarding the occurrence almost in tune with the prosecution case. PW2 was the Head Constable and PW3 was the Assistant Sub Inspector who were in the police party led by PW1. Their evidence, more or less, corroborates the testimony of PW1 on the material particulars of the occurrence. 6. PW4 and PW5 are the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution. They were persons summoned by the police to unload the articles from the lorry. They denied having seen the appellant at the spot of the occurrence. But, they admitted their signature in Ext.P1 mahazar. PW4 has given evidence that he saw 202 cans containing spirit in the lorry. 7. PW1 has sworn to the entire incident in necessary details. His evidence, on all material particulars, is corroborated by the evidence of PW2 and PW3 and to some extent, by the testimony of PW4. There is no striking improbability or material contradiction or discrepancy in the evidence of PW1 to PW3 regarding the seizure of 202 cans containing liquid from the lorry and the presence of the appellant in the cabin of the lorry. There is no whisper of an allegation that PW1 or any other police officer had any motive to falsely implicate the appellant in such a serious crime. There is nothing to show that the police officers have falsely implicated the appellant with a view to settle any personal score with him. In such circumstances, there is no sufficient ground to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 to PW3 regarding the seizure of 202 cans containing liquid from the lorry and the presence of the appellant in the cabin of the lorry. 8. However, seizure of 202 cans containing some liquid, from the lorry in which the appellant was travelling, does not prove the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act against him. Conviction of the appellant in the case is possible only on proof that the liquid contained in the cans was spirit. 9. Ext.P6 is the certificate of chemical analysis conducted in respect of 202 samples of liquid which were sent for analysis. Ext.P6 certificate shows that the sample of liquid was rectified spirit. 10. Conviction of the appellant in the case is possible only on proof that the liquid contained in the cans was spirit. 9. Ext.P6 is the certificate of chemical analysis conducted in respect of 202 samples of liquid which were sent for analysis. Ext.P6 certificate shows that the sample of liquid was rectified spirit. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no evidence that samples of the liquid were properly taken and produced before the court and sent for chemical analysis and therefore, there is no assurance that Ext.P6 certificate relates to the liquid seized from the lorry. Learned counsel also contended that the cans seized were not produced before the court and there was inordinate delay in producing the samples in the court. 11. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor contended that the samples were produced before the court and it was not practicable to produce the large number of cans containing liquid in the court. Learned Public Prosecutor would contend that there is nothing to suspect that the samples were tampered with by any person and therefore, there can be no doubt with regard to the fact that Ext.P6 certificate of chemical analysis relates to the liquid contained in the cans which were seized from the lorry. 12. Ext.P4 is the property list prepared by the investigating officer for production of the properties before the court. The report attached to Ext.P4 list would show that the cans containing liquid were never produced in the court but they were kept in the police station for the reason that it was not practicable to produce them in the court. 13. Ext.P4 property list shows that only 202 samples were produced before the court, that too, only on 26.10.2000. The occurrence was on 20.03.2000. The delay of more than seven months in producing the samples before the court is not explained by the prosecution. There is also no evidence as to who was in custody of the samples during the aforesaid period. 14. A Division Bench of this Court in Ravi v. State of Kerala : 2011(3) KHC 121 , had dealt with the question of delay in producing the material objects before the court in cases registered under the Abkari Act. There is also no evidence as to who was in custody of the samples during the aforesaid period. 14. A Division Bench of this Court in Ravi v. State of Kerala : 2011(3) KHC 121 , had dealt with the question of delay in producing the material objects before the court in cases registered under the Abkari Act. The Division Bench held that it is not necessary to produce the article seized under Section 34 of the Abkari Act before the Magistrate forthwith either by virtue of Section 102(3) Cr.P.C or by virtue of any of the provisions of the Abkari Act or the Abkari manual. It was held that what is required by the statute is only that the seizure of the property should be reported forthwith to the court, but the production of the property before court (whenever it is practicable) should also take place without unnecessary delay. It was further held that there should be explanation for the delay when there is delayed production of the property. 15. In the instant case, the explanation given for the non-production of the cans before the court was that it was not practicable to do so. However, no explanation whatsoever is given by the detecting officer for not producing the samples of liquid before the court without any delay. There is no explanation forthcoming as to why delay of more than seven months occurred in producing the samples before the court. As noticed earlier, there is also no evidence as to who was in custody of the samples during the aforesaid period. 16. PW1 has given evidence that the sample bottles were sealed at the spot of the occurrence. He has also stated that label, which contained the signature of the witnesses and the accused, was affixed on the sample bottles. But, Ext.P1 mahazar, which is a contemporaneous document alleged to have been prepared by PW1 at the spot of the occurrence, does not contain any recital that the sample bottles were sealed or labelled. Only in the description of the articles given in Ext.P1 mahazar that it is mentioned that the sample bottles had seal on them. Since Ext.P1 mahazar, the contemporaneous document prepared by PW1, does not contain any recital regarding sealing and labelling of the sample bottles, the testimony of PW1 in that regard cannot be accepted as reliable and trustworthy. 17. Only in the description of the articles given in Ext.P1 mahazar that it is mentioned that the sample bottles had seal on them. Since Ext.P1 mahazar, the contemporaneous document prepared by PW1, does not contain any recital regarding sealing and labelling of the sample bottles, the testimony of PW1 in that regard cannot be accepted as reliable and trustworthy. 17. The description of the sample bottles given in Ext.P4 property list also does not show that any label was affixed on them. The sample bottles, that too, only 202 in number, were produced before the court only more than seven months after the seizure. 18. Proof of mere seizure of large quantity of liquid from the possession of a person is not sufficient to establish that he had committed an offence punishable Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. The prosecution has to further establish that the liquid seized was contraband liquor. When the prosecution relies upon report of chemical analysis in respect of the sample sent for analysis to prove so, it can succeed only if it is shown that the liquid which was examined by the chemical examiner was the sample taken from the liquid seized. A conviction cannot be entered against the accused in a prosecution as the present one unless it is proved that the sample which was analysed by the chemical examiner was the very same sample drawn from the liquid allegedly seized from the possession of the accused. The prosecution has to prove all the links starting from the seizure of the samples till the same reached the hands of the chemical examiner. 19. The aforesaid view has been taken by this Court in a catena of decisions [See Ravi v. State of Kerala ( 2011 (3) KLT 353 ), Joseph v. State of Kerala ( 2009 (4) KHC 537 ), Sathi v. State of Kerala (2007 (1) KHC 778) and Sasidharan v. State of Kerala ( 2007 (1) KLT 720 )]. Authority for this view can also be had from various decisions of the Supreme Court (See State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram : AIR 1980 SC 1314 and Valsala v. State of Kerala : AIR 1994 SC 117 ). 20. Authority for this view can also be had from various decisions of the Supreme Court (See State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram : AIR 1980 SC 1314 and Valsala v. State of Kerala : AIR 1994 SC 117 ). 20. The principles mentioned earlier get support also from the very recent decision of the Supreme Court in Vijay Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh (judgment dated 30.07.2019 in Criminal Appeal No.1143 of 2019) wherein it has been held as follows: “The failure of the prosecution in the present case to relate the seized sample with that seized from the appellant makes the case no different from failure to produce the seized sample itself. In the circumstances the mere production of a laboratory report that the sample tested was narcotics cannot be conclusive proof by itself. The sample seized and that tested have to be co-related”. (emphasis supplied). 21. In the instant case, the inordinate and unexplained delay of more than seven months in producing the bottles containing the samples of liquid in the court coupled with absence of evidence regarding safe custody of the samples during the aforesaid period, is fatal to the prosecution case. 22. The upshot of the discussion above is that the conviction entered and sentence passed against the appellant under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act cannot be sustained. The appellant is entitled to be acquitted. 23. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the trial court under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act is set aside. The appellant is found not guilty of the aforesaid offence and he is acquitted. Bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant stands cancelled and he is set at liberty. Fine amount, if any, remitted by the appellant shall be refunded to him.