JUDGMENT : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. 1. The sole accused in S.C. No.848/2012 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Thalassery, has come up in appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge as per the judgment dated 30.01.2014. The State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor is arrayed as the sole respondent herein. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge and the records of the trial court. 3. In a nutshell, the prosecution case is that, at about 11.10 a.m. on 08.11.2011, the accused possessed 4.875 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (‘IMFL’ for short hereafter) without the security label of the Kerala State Beverages Corporation near the bus waiting shelter in Kuthuparamba, against the prohibitions contained in the Kerala Abkari Act and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act. The case was detected by the Excise Inspector, Excise Circle Office, Kuthuparamba and after investigation, Final Report filed alleging the said offence. 4. Initially, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Thalassery and later made over to the Additional Sessions Court-II, Thalassery for hearing and disposal. After, framing charge for the offence under Sections 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act, the trial court recorded evidence and tried the matter. PWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exts.P1 to P9 and MO1 were marked on the side of the prosecution. Even though, the accused was given opportunity to adduce defence evidence after questioning him under Section 313(1) of Cr.P.C, he did not opt to adduce any defence evidence. 5. On appreciation of evidence, the trial court found that the appellant/accused is guilty for the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months more. 6. While assailing the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that there is patent procedural irregularity in this matter, which would go to the root of the case, so that the accused would deserve acquittal. 6. While assailing the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that there is patent procedural irregularity in this matter, which would go to the root of the case, so that the accused would deserve acquittal. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that, as per the decision of this Court in Vijayan @ Puthoor Vijayan v. State of Kerala, 2021 (5) KHC 347 : 2021 (2) KLD 483 : 2021 KHC OnLine 595 : 2021 (5) KLT 321 : 2021 (4) KLJ 224 : 2021 KER 34088 , this Court analyzed the steps to be followed by the Officer collecting the sample, Thondy Clerk, who is authorized to receive the thondy and also the measures to be ensured by the Chemical Examiner to ensure that sample collected from the contraband seized safely reached the hands of the Chemical Examiner for examination. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, in the instant case, Condition No.ii to be followed by the officer collecting the sample as held in Vijayan @ Puthoor Vijayan ’s case (supra) is not followed or complied. Apart from that, independent witnesses to the recovery mahazar also turned hostile to the prosecution. Since there is reluctance on the part of the officer in describing the nature of the specimen seal in the mahazar and affixing the specimen seal in the mahazar, there is nothing to ensure that the sample sent for chemical examination is the one recovered from the appellant/accused. Therefore, the appellant/accused would get the benefit of doubt and thereby the verdict of the trial court is liable to be reversed. 7. Although, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed interference in the verdict of the trial court, he is not able to justify the laxity pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused. 8. In view of the rival submissions, the questions arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the trial court is justified in finding that the appellant/accused committed the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act? 2. Whether the trial court verdict requires interference? 3. Reliefs to be ordered? 9. 8. In view of the rival submissions, the questions arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the trial court is justified in finding that the appellant/accused committed the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act? 2. Whether the trial court verdict requires interference? 3. Reliefs to be ordered? 9. In Vijayan @ Puthoor Vijayan ’s case (supra), this Court enumerated the steps to be followed by the officer collecting the sample, steps to be followed by Thondy Clerk, who is authorized to receive the thondy and the measures to be ensured by the Chemical Examiner. The same read as under: “Steps to be followed by the officer collecting the sample: (i) Collection of sample from the alleged contraband by the Officer concerned shall be transparent eschewing possibility of tampering the sample in any manner; (ii) While collecting sample, the officer shall describe the nature of the specimen seal in the mahazar and the specimen seal shall be affixed on the mahazar, on the sample bottle, bottle containing the remaining part of contraband and the forwarding note; (iii) The sample so collected shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate without any delay and the delay if any, shall be properly explained; (iv) Specimen seal affixed on the sample should be produced before the court along with the contraband for comparison; (v) The said officer shall depose about compliance of the above before the court while giving evidence. Steps to be followed by the Thondy Clerk who is authorised to receive the thondy: (i) The Thondy Clerk shall verify the specimen seal produced before the court and to compare the same with a seal affixed in the mahazar, collected sample and in the forwarding note to ensure that the seal of the sample is intact and there is no scope for tampering the same in between its collection and production before the court; (ii) While forwarding the sample to the laboratory, the Thondy Clerk shall ensure that specimen sample seal is affixed on the forwarding note; (iii) The forwarding letter shall contain the name of the official who is entrusted to handover the sample to the Chemical Examiner; (iv) Specimen seal also to be provided to the Chemical Examiner for verification and to ensure that the specimen seal, so provided, is tallying with the seal affixed on the sample, to rule out the possibility of tampering while on transit of the sample; (v) Thondy Clerk must be examined to prove compliance of the above, also to prove that he has been in custody of the sample from the date of receipt of sample till the date of forwarding and also to prove compliance of item No.(i) to (iv) steps stated hereinabove. Measures to be ensured by the Chemical Examiner: (i) Chemical Examiner shall ensure production of specimen seal to verify as to whether the specimen seal provided in the forwarding note and the sample forwarded are tallying to rule out tampering of a sample during transit; (ii) In the chemical analysis report the said fact shall be stated so as to act upon the same without examining the Chemical Examiner as provided under Section 293 Cr.P.C.” 10. Apart from that, it has to be observed that, in a case of this nature the prosecution could succeed only if it is proved that the contraband liquor, which was allegedly seized from the accused, ultimately reached the hands of the Chemical Examiner without possibility of tampering. Decisions reported in State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram, 1980 KHC 873 , Valsala v. State of Kerala, 1993 (2) KLT 550 (SC) and Sasidharan v. State of Kerala, 2007 KHC 3404 are given emphasis. 11. Decisions reported in State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram, 1980 KHC 873 , Valsala v. State of Kerala, 1993 (2) KLT 550 (SC) and Sasidharan v. State of Kerala, 2007 KHC 3404 are given emphasis. 11. On perusal of Ext.P3 recovery mahazar, even though it has been stated that the specimen seal of the detecting officer was affixed on the samples collected, there is no narration in the mahazar specifying the description of the nature of the specimen seal affixed in the sample and also there is no sample seal affixed in the mahazar. Thus, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that, in the instant case, it could not be ensured that the sample collected reached at the hands of the Chemical Examiner, without being manipulated, is a point to be adjudged in favour of the appellant/accused to give the benefit of doubt. If so, it could not be held that the prosecution succeeded in proving that the accused possessed 4.875 litres of IMFL against the prohibitions contained in Kerala Abkari Act and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act. Even though, PW1, the detecting officer as well as PW5, the Investigating Officer supported the detection, recovery and investigation, PW2 and PW4, the independent witnesses to the recovery mahazar turned hostile to the prosecution. Although hostility of independent witnesses would not make the recovery unbelievable and the evidence of the official witnesses would suffice to prove the recovery, the laxity pointed out and found above would go to the root of the matter. 12. On evaluation of the evidence available, the mandates necessary to ensure tamper proof collection of sample of the alleged contraband as held in Vijayan @ Puthoor Vijayan ’s case (supra), failed to be established by the prosecution and thus the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the accused/appellant herein is entitled to benefit of doubt and as such the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court in the above circumstances cannot sustain. In view of the matter, the same are liable to be set aside. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court against the appellant/accused are set aside. Consequently, the appellant/accused is acquitted for the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. In view of the matter, the same are liable to be set aside. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court against the appellant/accused are set aside. Consequently, the appellant/accused is acquitted for the offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. The bail bond executed by the appellant/accused shall stand cancelled. He is set at liberty forthwith. Amount, if any, being part of the fine deposited by the appellant/accused by order of this Court shall be refunded to him, in accordance with the procedure established by law.