JUDGMENT : The appellant is the accused in the case S.C.No.813/2007 on the file of the Court of Session, Thrissur. The appeal is filed assailing the conviction entered and sentence passed against him under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act, 1077. 2. The prosecution case is that on 03.03.2005, at about 17.35 hours, at the road near the bus stop at Varadiyam Junction in Avanoor Village, the appellant sold Indian Made Foreign Liquor without any authority. 3. PW1, who was the Preventive Officer of Thrissur Excise Circle Office, detected the offence. He arrested the appellant from the spot. He took sample of the liquor allegedly found in the possession of the appellant and seized the bottles of liquor as per Ext. P1 mahazar. 4. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge framed by the trial court under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and marked Exts.P1 to P10 and material objects MO1 to MO5. No evidence was adduced by the appellant. 5. The trial court found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the records. 7. PW1 and PW4 are the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the occurrence. They did not support the prosecution case. But, they admitted their signature in Ext.P1 mahazar. 8. PW1 is the Preventive Officer who detected the alleged offence. He has given evidence as follows: When he was conducting patrolling duty with excise party, at the road at Varadiyam Junction, he saw the appellant pouring some liquid from a plastic bottle into a glass and giving it to another person. On seeing the excise party, the appellant tried to run away. PW1 obstructed him and examined the liquid contained in the plastic bottle, which was in the hands of the appellant. By taste and smell, he was satisfied that it was Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The person to whom the appellant gave the liquor ran away from the spot and escaped. On conducting search of the premises, PW1 found two other bottles of liquor. By taste and smell, he was satisfied that it was Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The person to whom the appellant gave the liquor ran away from the spot and escaped. On conducting search of the premises, PW1 found two other bottles of liquor. He arrested the appellant, took sample of liquid from the bottle which was in the possession of the appellant, sealed the bottles, affixed label on them and seized the articles as per Ext.P1 mahazar. 9. PW2 is the excise guard who was in the excise party led by PW1. His evidence, more or less, corroborates the testimony of PW1 on the material particulars of the occurrence. 10. There is no material contradiction or discrepancy in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 regarding the occurrence. Their evidence, alongwith Ext.P1 mahazar, proves the seizure of a bottle containing 750 ml. of liquid from the possession of the appellant. 11. However, there is absolutely no evidence to connect the appellant with the two bottles of liquor which were found in the vicinity by PW1 and seized by him. The plastic bag containing the aforesaid two bottles was lying near the bus waiting shed on the side of a public road. There is no reliable evidence to find that the appellant was the person who put the bottles of liquor there or that he had any connection whatsoever with them. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no evidence to prove that the person to whom the appellant gave the liquid, in turn, gave any money to the appellant and therefore, there was no sale of liquor made by the appellant. It is contended that neither PW1 nor PW2 has given any evidence that they saw the appellant receiving money from the person to whom he allegedly gave the liquor. 13. Section 55(i) of the Abkari provides that, whoever in contravention of that Act or of any rule or order made under that Act, sells or stores for sale liquor or any intoxicating drug, shall be liable for the punishment prescribed therein. In order to attract Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act, the prosecution has to prove that the accused either (i) sold liquor or any intoxicating drug or that he (ii) stored liquor or any intoxicating drug for sale, without any authority of law. In order to attract Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act, the prosecution has to prove that the accused either (i) sold liquor or any intoxicating drug or that he (ii) stored liquor or any intoxicating drug for sale, without any authority of law. Section 55 (i) of the Abkari Act prohibits, sale of liquor and storage of the same for sale, without the sanction of law. 14. In the instant case, the prosecution has no case that the appellant stored liquor for sale. Then, the question arises, in order to prove sale of liquor by the appellant, whether it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that he actually received money from the person to whom he gave the liquor. In my view, in order to prove sale of liquor, it is not necessary for the prosecution to establish that, actual exchange of money for liquor took place, at the time of detecting the alleged offence. In other words, it is not necessary that the detecting officer shall actually see the person who sells the liquor receiving money from the buyer or the buyer giving money to the seller. Sale of liquor by a person to another can be inferred from other facts and circumstances established by the prosecution. There may be cases where a person would purchase liquor on credit. There may be cases where, as alleged in the instant case, the person who buys the liquor could not give money to the seller due to the intervention of the police. Therefore, the mere fact that the detecting officer did not see the appellant receiving money from another person in exchange of liquor, is not sufficient to hold that the appellant did not sell liquor. 15. A learned Single Judge of this Court has taken a more or less similar view in Sidhan @ Sidharthan v. State of Kerala: 2014 (2) KHC 644 : 2014 (2) KLT 893 . 16. Ext.P10 chemical analysis certificate shows that, the sample of liquid which was sent for analysis, contained ethyl alcohol. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is doubt as to whether the very same sample of liquid taken by PW1 at the spot was sent for chemical analysis and therefore, there is no assurance that Ext.P10 certificate relates to the liquid which was in the bottle allegedly seized from the possession of the appellant. 18. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is doubt as to whether the very same sample of liquid taken by PW1 at the spot was sent for chemical analysis and therefore, there is no assurance that Ext.P10 certificate relates to the liquid which was in the bottle allegedly seized from the possession of the appellant. 18. According to PW1, he had taken sample of the liquid from the bottle which was found in the hands of the appellant. He has given evidence that he sealed the bottle containing the sample and affixed label on it bearing the signature of the appellant and the witnesses. The sample and other articles were produced before PW5 Excise Inspector. PW5 prepared Ext.P5 Crime and Occurrence Report. The description of the sample and other properties given in Ext.P5 shows that there was seal and label on them. Ext.P6 is the property list prepared by PW5 for producing the sample and other articles before the court. The description of the sample and other articles given in Ex.P6 also shows that there was seal and label on them. Ext.P7 is the copy of the forwarding note prepared by PW5 for sending the sample for chemical analysis. The sample which was forwarded for chemical analysis as per Ex.P7 is described therein as “approximately 300 ml. sample in 375 ml. bottle”. This description of the sample given in Ex.P7 indicates that the bottle containing the sample which was forwarded for chemical analysis was not sealed. Moreover, Ex.P7 shows that in the space for providing the sample seal, specimen impression of the seal used by PW1 to seal the sample bottle was not affixed. These defects in Ext.P7 forwarding note create doubt as to whether the very same sample of liquid taken by PW1 at the spot of the occurrence was forwarded for chemical analysis. 19. Mere seizure of a bottle allegedly containing liquor from the possession of the appellant is not sufficient to prove the offence alleged against him. When the prosecution relies upon the report of chemical analysis in respect of the sample sent for analysis to prove the offence alleged against the accused, it can succeed only if it is shown that the liquid which was examined by the chemical examiner was the very same sample drawn from the liquid seized. When the prosecution relies upon the report of chemical analysis in respect of the sample sent for analysis to prove the offence alleged against the accused, it can succeed only if it is shown that the liquid which was examined by the chemical examiner was the very same sample drawn from the liquid seized. The prosecution has to prove all the links starting from the seizure of the sample till the same reached the hands of the chemical examiner. 20. Mere production of a laboratory report that the sample tested was liquor cannot be conclusive proof by itself. The sample seized and that tested have to be co-related [See Vijay Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh: 2019 (10) SCALE 129 : 2019 (3) KLT OnLine 3028 (SC)]. 21. The upshot of the discussion above is that the conviction entered and sentence passed against the appellant under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act cannot be sustained. The appellant is entitled to be acquitted. 22. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the trial court under Section 55(i) of the Abkari Act are 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.