ORDER : The revision petitioner is the accused in the case S.C No.539/2007 on the file of the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Chengannur. 2. Concurrent verdicts of guilty and conviction recorded against the petitioner under Section 8(1) read with 8(2) of the Abkari Act, 1077 are assailed in this revision petition. 3. The prosecution case is that, on 18.07.2002, at about 11:45 hours, at the public road in front of the Orthodox Church at the place Thottumugham, PW1 Preventive Officer found the petitioner having in his possession MO1 can containing four litres of arrack. 4. The trial court framed charge against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 8(1) read with 8(2) of the Abkari Act. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Exts.P1 to P7 documents and material object MO1. No evidence was adduced by the petitioner/accused. 6. The trial court found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 8(1) read with 8(2) of the Abkari Act and convicted him thereunder. The trial court sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 7. The petitioner filed Crl.A.No.116/2009 challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the trial court. The appellate court confirmed the conviction as well as the sentence against the petitioner and dismissed the appeal. 8. The concurrent verdicts of guilty, conviction and sentence made against him by the courts below are challenged by the petitioner in this revision petition. 9. Heard. Perused the records. 10. PW1 is the Preventive Officer who detected the offence. PW4 is the excise guard who was in the excise party led by PW1. They gave evidence regarding the occurrence in detail. 11. The evidence of PW1 and PW4 would show that the excise party apprehended the petitioner and found in his possession a can containing some liquid. The fact that the independent witness, who was examined as PW2, did not support the prosecution case is not a sufficient ground to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 and PW4 regarding the seizure of a can containing liquid from the possession of the petitioner as per Ext.P1 mahazar. 12. The fact that the independent witness, who was examined as PW2, did not support the prosecution case is not a sufficient ground to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 and PW4 regarding the seizure of a can containing liquid from the possession of the petitioner as per Ext.P1 mahazar. 12. PW1 and PW4 identified MO1 in the court as the can containing liquid seized from the possession of the petitioner/accused. Their evidence in that regard lacks credibility. There is a specific recital in Ext.P1 mahazar that PW1 sealed the can which was seized from the accused and that he affixed label on it which contained his signature and also the signature of the witnesses and the accused. The can identified as MO1 by PW1 and PW4 in the court had no seal or label on it. Every such can would look alike or similar. The occurrence was on 18.07.2002. Final report in the case was filed only on 23.01.2007. PW1 gave evidence before the court on 28.01.2009 and PW4 gave evidence on 30.01.2009. Identification of the can before the court by PW1 and PW4, who were testifying before the court more than six years after the occurrence, without any marks of identification on it, as the very same can seized from the possession of the accused, cannot be accepted as reliable and trustworthy. 13. It is quite probable and natural that the seal and the labels put on the can may be lost or effaced or damaged during its storage in the court or the excise office for a long period. However, in the instant case, there are circumstances to show that the can containing the liquid which was seized from the possession of the accused was not the can which was produced before the court. As noticed earlier, there is a specific recital in Ext.P1 mahazar that PW1 sealed the can which was seized from the accused and that he affixed label bearing his signature and also the signature of the witnesses and the accused on it. PW1 gave evidence also to that effect. He also deposed that he produced the material objects and the documents at the Excise Range Office. PW1 gave evidence also to that effect. He also deposed that he produced the material objects and the documents at the Excise Range Office. PW5 Excise Inspector has given evidence that the articles seized by PW1 and the accused were produced before him and he prepared Ext.P6 crime and occurrence report and he produced the material objects before the court as per Ext.P7 property list. The description of the can given in Ext.P6 report and Ext.P7 property list does not show that it was sealed or labelled or that there was any seal or any label on it. Therefore, it cannot be found that the very same can which was seized from the possession of the accused was produced before the court. 14. Ext.P5 is the chemical analysis report in respect of the sample of liquid which was sent to the laboratory for examination. It shows that ethyl alcohol was detected in the sample. 15. However, there is no evidence to find that the sample, which was analysed under Ext.P5 report, was the very same sample taken from the liquid seized from the possession of the accused. 16. In the first place, the description of the sample given in Ext.P6 report and Ext.P7 property list does not show that there was any label on it. There is a specific recital in Ext.P1 mahazar that PW1 affixed label bearing his signature and the signature of the witnesses and the accused also on the bottle containing the sample. PW1 gave evidence also to that effect. Absence of any such label on the bottle containing the sample which was produced before the court creates suspicion. 17. In the second place, even assuming that the very same sample drawn from the liquid seized from the possession of the accused was produced before the court, there is no evidence to find that the very same sample of liquid was forwarded for chemical analysis. This is for the reason that copy of the forwarding note, which should have been prepared for sending the sample to the laboratory, is not tendered in evidence and marked. 18. In order to establish the prosecution case against the petitioner/accused, it is necessary to prove that the very same sample which was drawn from the liquid seized from his possession was forwarded to the laboratory for examination and analysed there. 18. In order to establish the prosecution case against the petitioner/accused, it is necessary to prove that the very same sample which was drawn from the liquid seized from his possession was forwarded to the laboratory for examination and analysed there. The prosecution has to prove that the very same sample drawn from the liquid which was seized from the possession of the accused ultimately reached the hands of the chemical examiner in a tamper proof condition. 19. In Vijay Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh : AIR 2019 SC 3569 , 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”. 20. In the instant case, neither PW3 who conducted the investigation of the case nor PW5 who produced the sample before the court has given evidence that forwarding note was prepared or that any request was made to the court for sending the sample to the laboratory. Copy of the forwarding note, if any, prepared was not marked also. The forwarding note is expected to contain the specimen impression of the seal used for sealing the bottles containing the samples. In the absence of the forwarding note admitted in evidence, it cannot be found that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the very same sample taken at the spot of the occurrence had reached the chemical examiner for analysis in a tamper proof condition. 21. The above mentioned vital aspects have not been considered by the trial court and the appellate court while appreciating the prosecution evidence. In such circumstances, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/accused by the trial court, which stands affirmed by the appellate court, cannot be sustained. The petitioner/accused is entitled to be acquitted. 22. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/accused by the trial court for committing the offence punishable under Section 8(1) read with 8(2) of the Abkari Act, which stands affirmed by the appellate court, is set aside. The petitioner/accused is entitled to be acquitted. 22. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/accused by the trial court for committing the offence punishable under Section 8(1) read with 8(2) 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. Bail bond, if any, executed by him stands cancelled and he is set at liberty. Fine amount, if any, remitted by him shall be refunded to him.