ORDER : M.B. Snehalatha, J. Revision petitioner herein assails the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Sections 55(a) and 55(i) of the Kerala Abkari Act. 2. Prosecution case is that on 22.4.2015 at about 6.30 pm, in the lean to shed attached to ‘New Lakshmi Hotel’ of Mannur Grama Panchayat, the revision petitioner/accused was found engaged in unauthorised sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (for short IMFL) and was found in possession of 2.250 liters of IMFL. Accused thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 55(a) and 55(i) of the Abkari Act. 3. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. To substantiate the prosecution case, prosecution examined Pws 1 to 5 and marked Exts.P1 to P12 and MO1 series. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused. 4. After trial, the trial court found the accused guilty under Sections 55(a) and 55(i) of Abkari Act and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh each under Sections 55(a) and 55(i) of the Abkari Act. In default of payment of fine, imprisonment for four months each was also ordered. The appeal filed by the revision petitioner/accused was dismissed by the Sessions Court by confirming the conviction and sentence. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused contended that the trial court went wrong in convicting the accused for the offences under Sections 55(a) and 55(i) of the Abkari Act; that the prosecution failed to prove the seizure of 2.250 litres of IMFL from the possession of revision petitioner/accused and also failed to prove the sale of Indian made foreign liquor by him. It was contended that the alleged search and seizure were conducted illegally without complying the mandatory provisions and in violation of Sections 30 and 31 of Abkari Act and therefore accused is entitled to get an order of acquittal. Further, it was contended that there is an unexplained delay in producing the samples allegedly drawn from the contraband before the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory and therefore the prosecution failed to establish that the sample was produced before the laboratory in a tamper-proof condition and accordingly no reliance can be placed on the chemical analysis report. 7. Further, it was contended that there is an unexplained delay in producing the samples allegedly drawn from the contraband before the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory and therefore the prosecution failed to establish that the sample was produced before the laboratory in a tamper-proof condition and accordingly no reliance can be placed on the chemical analysis report. 7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the findings in the impugned judgment and contended that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the accused was found selling IMFL in the lean-to shed attached to New Lakshmi Hotel by possessing 2.250 litres of IMFL and therefore there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 8. In view of the rival submissions, the point for consideration in this revision is whether the conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 55(a) and 55(i) of the Abkari Act warrants any interference by this Court. 9. PW1 was the Preventive Officer of Excise Range, Parali. According to him, on 22.4.2015 at around 6.30 pm, acting on a tip-off regarding the unauthorised sale of IMFL, the excise party led by him reached at the lean to shed attached to the hotel named New Lakshmi and conducted search after preparing and sending the memorandum of search to the court by post. His further version is that when he reached there, accused was found holding a plastic bottle containing liquor and PW3 Mohandas was found holding a glass tumbler. Upon seeing the excise officials, though PW3 who was holding the glass tumbler made an attempt to flee from there, one of the excise officials held PW3. Further version of PW1 is that upon enquiry, PW3 revealed that he had come there for consuming liquor. PW1 has further testified that upon search of the said shed, three bottles of liquor having a total quantity of 2 liters of IMFL which had been kept by the accused in a bag were also found there and he seized those bottles of IMFL from them. Thus according to PW1, accused was found in possession of 2.250 liters of IMFL for the purpose of sale. Ext.P5 is the search list and Ext.P3 is the seizure mahazar prepared by PW1. 10. PWs3 and 4 cited as independent witnesses for search and seizure turned hostile to the prosecution and did not support the prosecution case. Thus according to PW1, accused was found in possession of 2.250 liters of IMFL for the purpose of sale. Ext.P5 is the search list and Ext.P3 is the seizure mahazar prepared by PW1. 10. PWs3 and 4 cited as independent witnesses for search and seizure turned hostile to the prosecution and did not support the prosecution case. They denied to have witnessed the search and seizure. 11. According to the prosecution, the search was conducted in the lean-to attached to the hotel ‘New Lakshmi’ housed in building No.8/30 of Mannur Grama Panchayat. 12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner pointed out that the search was conducted without complying Section 31 of the Abkari Act. It was contended that though the detecting officer namely PW1 who conducted the alleged search and seizure, would say that he had sent the search memorandum to the court, no such document was produced before the court and not even a copy of the said document, allegedly sent to the court was produced before the court. 13. As per Section 30 of the Abkari Act, before searching a place on the basis of information received, a warrant must be obtained from a Magistrate who must examine the informant and the statement must be reduced into writing. In circumstances where the search warrant cannot be obtained, the officer can invoke Section 31 of the Abkari Act, under which, an Abkari officer must, before proceeding to search a place, make a record of the ground based on which he believes an offence under the Act has been committed. 14. Though PW1, the detecting officer who allegedly conducted search and seizure would say that he had prepared a search memorandum and had entrusted it to one Civil Excise Officer named Sajish to send it to the court, no such search memorandum was produced before the court. Not even a copy of the search memorandum allegedly prepared by PW1 was made available before the court. The said fact coupled with the lack of any independent witnesses to prove the search and seizure of the contraband cast doubt in the prosecution case regarding search and seizure. Likewise, though in Ext.P3 seizure mahazar, it has been stated that the accused Jayesh was running the hotel and he was in possession of the lean to shed, prosecution failed to produce any documents to substantiate the said case. Likewise, though in Ext.P3 seizure mahazar, it has been stated that the accused Jayesh was running the hotel and he was in possession of the lean to shed, prosecution failed to produce any documents to substantiate the said case. Ext.P11 document produced by the prosecution would show that the said building is owned by one Mr.Mohandas. Moreover, the quantity of IMFL allegedly seized was 2.250 liters which is within the permissible quantity which a person can possess. PW1 the detecting officer has categorically admitted during his cross examination that he has not witnessed the sale of liquor by the accused. Further he had admitted that he did not see the accused pouring the liquor to the glass tumbler allegedly held by PW3. Thus, there is no evidence to show that the accused was engaged in the sale of IMFL as alleged by the prosecution. Moreover, Ext.P12 Chemical Analysis Report would show that though the sample was sent through the Woman Civil Excise Officer (WCEO) on 4.5.2015 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Palakkad, the sample reached at the Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory only on 12.5.2015. Prosecution has not furnished any explanation for the said delay in producing the said sample before the laboratory. The Woman Civil Excise Officer through whom the sample was sent to the laboratory, was not examined by the prosecution. There is no evidence as to who was in the custody of the sample from 4.5.2015 till its production before the Chemical Examiners Laboratory on 12.5.2015. The possibility of tampering with the sample cannot be ruled out. There is no assurance that the very same sample which was allegedly drawn and produced before the court reached the Chemical Analysis Laboratory in a tamper-proof condition. In Sasidharan v. State of Kerala ( 2007(1) KLT 720 ) this Court has emphasised the legal obligation cast on the prosecution to prove that the sample allegedly drawn from the contraband seized from the accused eventually reached the hands of the chemical examiner in a tamper-proof condition. It was further held in the decision cited supra that when the sample changed several hands before reaching the chemical examiner, the prosecution has to necessarily examine the various officials who handled the sample to prove that while in their custody, the seal of the sample has not been tampered with. It was further held in the decision cited supra that when the sample changed several hands before reaching the chemical examiner, the prosecution has to necessarily examine the various officials who handled the sample to prove that while in their custody, the seal of the sample has not been tampered with. In Vijay Panday v. State of UP ( AIR 2019 SC 3569 ), the Apex Court held that mere production of a laboratory report that the sample tested was the contraband substance cannot be conclusive proof by itself and that the sample seized and one tested are to be correlated. In the case in hand, prosecution failed to establish that the sample allegedly drawn from the contraband seized from the accused eventually reached at the hands of chemical examiner in a tamper-proof condition. 15. Prosecution has not succeeded in establishing the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and therefore, accused is entitled to get an order of acquittal. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed; accused is found not guilty of the offences under Sections 55(a) and 55(i) of the Abkari Act and he is acquitted. His bail bond stands discharged and he is set at liberty. Fine, if any, remitted by the accused shall be returned to him.