ORDER : The revision petitioner is the first accused in the case S.C.No.502/2004 on the file of the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Thrissur. 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kunnamkulam intercepted and inspected the lorry KL-10A/8034 at the road in front of Royal Hospital at Kunnamkulam, at about 13:20 hours on 29.08.2000. He found 1271.880 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (for short 'IMFL') in the lorry. The liquor was being transported without any permit. The first accused was the driver of the lorry. The second accused was found inside the cabin of the lorry. The Dy.S.P arrested them and seized the liquor. This is the prosecution case. 3. The trial court framed charge against the two accused for the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. Both accused pleaded not guilty to the offence and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and marked Exts.P1 to P11 documents and MO1 to MO5 series material objects. No evidence was adduced by the accused. 5. The trial court found both accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and convicted them thereunder and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each. 6. The two accused filed separate appeals before the Court of Session, Thrissur challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed against them by the trial court. The appellate court confirmed the conviction as well as the sentence against the petitioner, who is the first accused, and dismissed the appeal filed by him. The appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the second accused and set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the trial court. 7. The concurrent verdicts of guilty, conviction and sentence made against him by the courts below are challenged by the first accused in this revision petition. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. 9. PW1 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police who detected the offence. He has sworn to the entire incident in detail. PW2 is the Circle Inspector who was in the police party led by PW1. He has also deposed with regard to the occurrence. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records. 9. PW1 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police who detected the offence. He has sworn to the entire incident in detail. PW2 is the Circle Inspector who was in the police party led by PW1. He has also deposed with regard to the occurrence. PW3 is one of the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution. He has supported the prosecution case except the presence of the accused at the scene of the occurrence. But, he would say that he signed the seizure mahazar at the police station. PW4, the other independent witness, would say that he had seen the occurrence but he signed the seizure mahazar at the police station. PW5 is only an attestor to the scene mahazar. PW6 is the property clerk of the Magistrate's Court concerned. PW7 is the Additional Sub Inspector who conducted the investigation of the case. 10. Ext.P9 is the chemical examination report in respect of the samples of liquid which were sent for analysis. It shows that the samples of liquid contained ethyl alcohol of different strength. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no reliable evidence to find that the petitioner was the driver of the lorry in which the liquor was allegedly transported or that he was arrested at or from the spot of the occurrence. Learned counsel would also contend that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to find that Ext.P9 chemical analysis report relates to the samples allegedly taken at the spot of the occurrence by PW1. 12. The evidence of PW1 is that, he intercepted the lorry and inspected it and when he found that liquor was being transported in it without any authority, he arrested the two accused persons who were found in the cabin of the lorry. PW1 identified the two accused in the court as the persons arrested by him. The evidence of PW2 is on the same lines. Of course, he has stated on cross-examination that the first accused was the driver of the lorry. But, he did not identify the first accused in the court as the driver of the lorry. 13. The aforesaid evidence of PW1 and PW2 does not prove that the first accused was the driver of the lorry in which the liquor was transported. But, he did not identify the first accused in the court as the driver of the lorry. 13. The aforesaid evidence of PW1 and PW2 does not prove that the first accused was the driver of the lorry in which the liquor was transported. Neither PW1 nor PW2 identified the first accused in the court as the driver of the lorry or atleast as the person who was found sitting in the driver's seat in the lorry. 14. The appellate court, having found that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is insufficient to prove that the first accused was the driver of the lorry, has taken much strain to find that the recitals in the documents produced and proved by the prosecution would establish the identity of the driver of the lorry. This view adopted by the appellate court is wrong. Substantive evidence to prove the identity of an offender is the statement of the witness in the court, identifying the accused in the court as the offender or the person who committed the act. Identity of the offender cannot be proved merely on the basis that the name of the accused is mentioned in the documents prepared by the detecting officer as the person who committed the offensive act. 15. However, the evidence of PW1 and PW2, if accepted as reliable and trustworthy, is sufficient to prove that the first accused was one of the two persons who were found in the cabin of the lorry in which the liquor was transported. 16. But, there are many circumstances to doubt the veracity of the prosecution case that the petitioner, the first accused in the case, was arrested from the spot of the occurrence as testified by PW1 and PW2. 17. Ext.P3 is the arrest memo prepared by PW1 at the spot of the occurrence for arresting the first accused. It does not bear the signature of the first accused. Attention of PW1 was invited to this fact during the cross examination. He admitted that Ext.P3 arrest memo does not bear the signature of the first accused. But, he did not offer any explanation for the same. 18. Absence of the signature of the first accused in Ext.P3 arrest memo would assume significance in the context of the plea made by the petitioner that he was not arrested from the spot of the occurrence. But, he did not offer any explanation for the same. 18. Absence of the signature of the first accused in Ext.P3 arrest memo would assume significance in the context of the plea made by the petitioner that he was not arrested from the spot of the occurrence. In this connection, it is to be noted that Ext.P4 arrest memo prepared by PW1 for arresting the second accused bears the signature of the second accused. 19. There is a specific column provided in Ext.P3 arrest memo to record whether intimation regarding arrest was given to any relative of the accused. Nothing is recorded against this column in Ext.P3 arrest memo. PW1 has also not given any evidence that intimation regarding the arrest of the first accused was given to any relative or friend of him. 20. In Ext.P3 arrest memo, the time of arrest of the first accused is shown as 13:30 hours on 29.08.2000. Ext.P2 first information report was registered as Crime No.409/2000 by PW1 on the same day at 15.00 hours at Kunnamkulam police station. However, in Ext.P3 arrest memo, which is a document allegedly prepared by PW1 at the spot of the occurrence at 13:30 hours on 29.08.2000, the crime number of the case is mentioned. The evidence of PW1 is that, he had entrusted the records of the case, including the arrest memo, to PW7 Additional Sub Inspector and thereafter, he had not seen the arrest memo. Then, it eludes comprehension how the number of the case registered by PW1 at 15.00 hours on 29.08.2000 happened to be there in the arrest memo prepared by him at the spot of the occurrence at 13:30 hours on the same day. 21. Presence of the crime number of the case in the arrest memo prepared by the detecting officer at the spot of the occurrence, in the absence of any explanation offered by the prosecution, gives rise to either of the two inferences, that the first information report was recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the contraband or that the number of the first information report was inserted in the arrest memo after its registration. In both situations, it seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version of the incident and creates a good deal of doubt about recovery of the contraband in the manner alleged by the prosecution (See Zofar v. State : 2000 Cri.L.J 1589, Kailash @ Kuddu v. State : 2000 Cri.L.J 2134 and Karunakar Bindhani v. State of Kerala : 2017 (1) KLD 48 ). When it is alleged by the prosecution that the seizure was effected and the accused was arrested prior to the registration of the first information report, the presence of the crime number of the case in the arrest memo, in the absence of any cogent and convincing explanation offered by the prosecution, creates a deep dent on the veracity of the case put forward by the prosecution (See Shyam Bharia v. State of Madhya Pradesh: 2005 Cri.L.J 1907). It creates doubt as to the manner in which seizure of the contraband substance and the arrest of the accused were effected by the police officers (See K. Kalyani v. State : MANU/TN/1070/2019). 22. In the instant case, Ext.P3 arrest memo allegedly prepared by PW1 at the spot of the occurrence, before the registration of the first information report, bears the crime number of the case. PW1 has not given any evidence that he inserted the crime number of the case in the arrest memo after the registration of the first information report. PW7 has also no such case before the court. As PW1 was the police officer who had arrested the first accused and who had registered the first information report, he is supposed to explain the presence of the crime number in the arrest memo. No explanation is offered by the prosecution with regard to the presence of the crime number of the case in Ext.P3 arrest memo. This creates doubt about the manner in which the seizure and arrest were effected. This also supports the evidence given by the independent witnesses that they put the signature in Ext.P3 arrest memo at the police station. 23. The arrest memo prepared by PW1 for arresting the petitioner does not bear the signature of the petitioner. The arrest memo also does not show that intimation regarding the arrest of the petitioner was given to any of his relatives or friends. The column for recording that fact is left blank in Ext.P3 arrest memo. 23. The arrest memo prepared by PW1 for arresting the petitioner does not bear the signature of the petitioner. The arrest memo also does not show that intimation regarding the arrest of the petitioner was given to any of his relatives or friends. The column for recording that fact is left blank in Ext.P3 arrest memo. There is no other evidence also that intimation regarding the arrest of the petitioner was given to any person. Ext.P3 arrest memo bears the crime number of the case which was registered subsequent to the arrest of the petitioner. The prosecution has not offered any explanation for this anomaly. The cumulative effect of these factors is the creation of a doubt that the arrest of the petitioner and the seizure of the liquor were effected by the police not in the manner alleged by the prosecution. The benefit of that doubt shall go to the petitioner. 24. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is unnecessary to consider the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding absence of link evidence, especially the absence of the forwarding note, to establish that the very same samples allegedly seized at the spot of the occurrence were the samples forwarded for analysis and tested in the laboratory. 25. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/first accused by the trial court under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, which stands affirmed by the appellate court, is set aside. The petitioner/accused is found not guilty of the aforesaid offence and he is acquitted. The bail bond executed by him is cancelled and he is set at liberty. Fine amount, if any, remitted by him shall be refunded to him.