ORDER : 1. This criminal revision petition is preferred impugning the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-II, Kasaragod in Crl.A.No.176 of 2008. 2. The revision petitioner herein is the 1 st accused in Crime No.161 of 2000 of the Nileshwar Police Station registered for offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the ABKARI ACT . 3. The prosecution case is that PW9, the Circle Inspector of Police, Nileshwar, and his team were conducting vehicle check duty on the National Highway in front of the Nileshwar Police Station at 9.00 a.m. on 18.08.2000. While so, at 9.30 a.m., PW9 had seen a mini lorry bearing Registration No. KL-13D-6943 coming from Kanhangad side, carrying vegetables. He caused the vehicle to stop there by giving hand signal. When the police party inspected the vehicle, they found certain height difference in the platform and when they questioned the driver and cleaner, who are accused Nos. 1 and 2, they jumped from the driver’s cabin and ran away towards the south. The police party chased them and took them into custody in front of the Nithyananda Tackies. When they were questioned, they admitted that they were transporting the spirit by making use of the secret chamber made beneath to the platform. When the police party checked the vehicle, they found a covering lid on either side of the platform, which was welded with bolts, and when they removed the bolt with the help of the workers of the nearby Nithyananda workshop and opened the lid, they found that it was a secret chamber made underneath the platform parallel to its length and breadth, and it was filled with full of spirit. The spirit was removed to 7 barrels having the capacity of 210 litres each, another barrel with the capacity of 200 ml, and a cannas having capacity of 35 litres. As PW9 was satisfied that the accused were transporting the contraband article in contravention of the provision of the ABKARI ACT and Rules, he arrested both the accused, seized contraband articles under the cover of Ext.P1 mahazar, and took a sample from it in the presence of the independent witnesses and the accused, and the articles were taken to the Police Station from where he registered Ext.P6 FIR. PW10 is the S.I. of Police, Nileshwar who conducted the investigation in this case, and after completing the investigation, PW7, another S.I. of Police laid the charge sheet. 4. The 1 st accused (revision petitioner herein) was the driver of the mini lorry and 2 nd accused was the cleaner of mini lorry. The second accused absconded and case against him was split up and re-filed as C.P. No.99/2004. The revision petitioner herein stood for trial. 5. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg, took cognizance of the offence in C.P.No. 66/2002. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Kasaragod. The Court of Sessions, Kasaragod made over the case to the Assistant Sessions Court, Kasaragod, for trial and disposal. 6. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 7. The appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence. Impugning the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the accused preferred this revision. 8. Before the trial court, PWs.1 to 11 were examined, Exts.P1 to P10 were marked and MOs. 1 to 6 were identified. 9. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the incriminating circumstances put to him. After full fledged trial, the Assistant Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. 10. I have heard Adv. Ranjith George, the learned Public Prosecutor and Adv. K.S. Madhusoodhanan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. 11. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the impugned judgment is legally sustainable and no interference, whatsoever, is warranted in this matter. He further submitted that the prosecution has succeeded in alleging and proving the charge against the revision petitioner. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the impugned judgment is illegal, irregular and improper. Both the trial court and the appellate court had failed to note the illegalities and improprieties in this case. 13. The learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution has failed to allege and prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the penal statutes are to be interpreted strictly within the four corners of the Statute. Both the trial court and the appellate court had failed to note the illegalities and improprieties in this case. 13. The learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution has failed to allege and prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the penal statutes are to be interpreted strictly within the four corners of the Statute. Suspicion, however strong it may be, it would not be a substitute for proof. The impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures. 14. I have heard the rival submission of the counsel for the parties and perused the records. 15. The main submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the absence of specimen seal in Ext.P1 Seizure Mahazar and Ext.P9 Forwarding Note. 16. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner placed reliance on Anil Varghese v. State of Kerala , 2024 (6) KHC 490 . In Anil Varghese (supra), this Court placing reliance on Moothedath Sivadasan v. State of Kerala , 2021 KHC 3232 held that when the specimen impression of the seal affixed on the seizure mahazar was not produced before the Court, it is difficult to hold that, the sample which reached the chemical examiner’s lab was the sample taken from the contraband allegedly seized from the possession of the accused. 17. In Shibu Jacob v. Sub Inspector of Police , 2023 KHC OnLine 752, this Court, in paragraph 8 observed as follows: 8. Yet another contention raised by the revision petitioners is that in Ext.P1, no specimen seal is seen affixed. It is also contended that the forwarding note is not seen marked. The purpose of putting the specimen seal impression in the seizure mahazar is to give an opportunity to the court to verify the same and satisfy that the seized substances reach the court without any tampering. The specimen seal is provided in the forwarding note so as to enable the chemical examiner to compare it with the seal on the sample and come to the conclusion that it reached the laboratory without any tampering. In this case, no specimen seal is seen affixed in the seizure mahazar and the forwarding note itself is not produced and marked. In this case, no specimen seal is seen affixed in the seizure mahazar and the forwarding note itself is not produced and marked. This court in Vijayan v. State of Kerala , 2021 (5) KLT 321 , has enumerated the steps to be followed by the officer collecting the sample, the Thondy Clerk who is authorized to receive the thondy and the measures to be ensured by the chemical examiner and held that the specimen seal shall be affixed on the mahazar, sample bottle, bottle containing the remaining part of the contraband and the forwarding note and further held that while collecting sample the officer shall describe the nature of the specimen seal in the mahazar. In the present case, the forwarding note by which the sample of the contraband was sent for chemical analysis is also not produced and marked. In Nadarajan v. State of Kerala, [2020 (3) KLT OnLine 1030], it is held that when the specimen seal is not affixed on the seizure mahazar and in the forwarding note (in the present case no forwarding note is produced and marked), there is no assurance that the very same sample which was allegedly drawn at the spot of occurrence was produced before the court and sent for analysis as per the forwarding note and it has reached the laboratory in a tamper proof condition and tested there. A similar view was taken by this court in Gopalan v. State of Kerala , 2016 (3) KLT SN 16 , Prakasan v. State of Kerala , 2016 (1) KLT SN 96 (C. No. 96) , Joseph v. State of Kerala , 2009 (4) KHC 537 , Ajayakumar v. State of Kerala , 2021 KHC 3872 , Gireesh @ Manoj v. State of Kerala , 2019 KHC 655, Faijas v. State of Kerala , 2020 KHC 5259 and Ramachandran v. State of Kerala , 2021 (1) KLT 793 . This court in Moothedath Sivadasan v. State of Kerala , 2021 (1) KLT 744 has held that since no specimen impression of seal is seen affixed in the seizure mahazar it is very difficult to hold that the sample of the contraband allegedly seized from the accused has in fact reached the Chemical Examiner for analysis. This court in Moothedath Sivadasan v. State of Kerala , 2021 (1) KLT 744 has held that since no specimen impression of seal is seen affixed in the seizure mahazar it is very difficult to hold that the sample of the contraband allegedly seized from the accused has in fact reached the Chemical Examiner for analysis. This court in Sasidharan v. State of Kerala , 2007 (1) KLT 720 has considered and emphasized the legal obligation cast on the prosecution to prove that the sample allegedly seized from the accused eventually reached the hand of the chemical examiner in a tamper - proof condition. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram , AIR 1980 SC 1314 , this court in Sasidharn's case supra held 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. The Apex Court in Vijay Pandey v. State of U.P. , AIR 2019 SC 3569 has 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. A similar view was taken by this court in Udayan v. State of Kerala , 2023 (1) KLT 371 . In view of the lacuna pointed out above, it is to be held that the prosecution could not establish the link evidence connecting the accused with the contraband seized and the sample analysed in the laboratory and in the said circumstances, the revision petitioners are entitled to the benefit of doubt.” 18. In Shijo Das v. State of Kerala , 2023 KHC OnLine 732, this Court, in paragraphs 11 and 12, held as under: 11. Absence of proper impression of specimen seal in the mahazar and absence of sample seal in the forwarding note etc. are circumstances to doubt the identity of the sample seized and the sample sent for chemical analysis. Prosecution is duty bound to prove that there was tamper proof despatch of the sample, to show that the sample taken from the contraband seized from the accused, was the sample which reached the hands of the chemical examiner. are circumstances to doubt the identity of the sample seized and the sample sent for chemical analysis. Prosecution is duty bound to prove that there was tamper proof despatch of the sample, to show that the sample taken from the contraband seized from the accused, was the sample which reached the hands of the chemical examiner. Since prosecution failed to prove the same, we cannot say that the link evidence was established. 12. In Sasidharan v. State of Kerala , 2007 (1) KLT 720 , this Court held that, the prosecution has a duty to prove that it was the sample taken from the contraband liquor seized from the accused which had reached the hands of the chemical examiner in a foolproof condition. Unless the link evidence of actual sampling and sending the same in a sealed packet to the chemical examiner with a specimen seal sent separately for tamper proof despatch, the prosecution cannot be held to have brought home the offence alleged. 19. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to allege and prove that the revision petitioner herein was the driver of the mini lorry. The driving license for Goods Vehicle Register (GVR) and records pertaining to the mini lorry were not seized and produced before the court. 20. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, considering all the illegalities, infirmities and irregularities stated above would casts serious doubts in the prosecution story. The prosecution has failed to allege and prove the charge against the revision petitioner/accused beyond reasonable doubt. 21. The next submission by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that eventhough the prosecution alleges that the revision petitioner is the driver of the mini lorry, no documents to connect the revision petitioner with the lorry, such as a driving license, RC book, etc., were produced and marked. Therefore, a vital link of evidence is lacking in this case. 22. PW9, Shahul Hameed, Circle Inspector of Police, Nileshwar, detected the case. He stated that on 18.08.2000, while he was on patrol duty at Kanhangad, a mini lorry bearing registration No. KL-13D-6943 was inspected. The vehicle contained 12 sacks of cucumber and about 350 numbers of pumpkins. On seeing the police party, the driver and other person ran away from the lorry. PW9 and his team pursued and restrained them in front of Nithyananda Tackies. The vehicle contained 12 sacks of cucumber and about 350 numbers of pumpkins. On seeing the police party, the driver and other person ran away from the lorry. PW9 and his team pursued and restrained them in front of Nithyananda Tackies. When he examined the lorry, he could found a huge quantity of spirit concealed in a separate cabin beneath the platform of the mini lorry. 23. The separate cabin was opened with the aid of two mechanics, namely, Shaji and Raju by opening the bolt. Thereafter, the accused was arrested at about 11.30 a.m, after preparing Ext.P5 arrest memo. The total quantity of the spirit seized was about 1600 litres. The spirit was seized as per Ext.P1 seizure mahazar. In cross-examination, he would say that the name of the lorry driver and cleaner were not stated in Ext.P1 seizure mahazar. He could not seize the records of the vehicle, as they were not kept in the vehicle. He cannot say whether the driver is having a valid driving license. He has no previous acquaintance with the accused. The mechanics, Shaji and Raju were not cited as witnesses. 24. In cross-examination, he would further say that the secret chamber could not be identified at first sight. He has not conducted any investigation as to who created the secret chamber. 25. The learned counsel for the appellant/revision petitioner would submit that the prosecution has failed to aver and prove that the appellant, the driver of the lorry was knowingly transported the spirit. The detecting officer would say that the secret chamber could not be identified in the first sight. Admittedly, vegetables were being transported in the mini lorry. 26. PW10, the Sub Inspector of Police, conducted the investigation and laid the charge sheet. He also prepared Ext.P8 scene mahazar and forwarded the material objects to the jurisdictional court. 27. In cross-examination, the investigating officer stated that he cannot say who is the the owner of the lorry. He does not know the source of the spirit. 28. On going through the evidence of PW10, it could be seen that more investigation was conducted as to the source of the spirit, not as to the fact that for whom it was transported. No documents were seized to connect the appellant with the mini lorry. He does not know the source of the spirit. 28. On going through the evidence of PW10, it could be seen that more investigation was conducted as to the source of the spirit, not as to the fact that for whom it was transported. No documents were seized to connect the appellant with the mini lorry. Similarly, the mechanics Shaji and Raju, who allegedly opened the bolt and the secret chamber, were not cited and examined. 29. The upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution has failed to allege and prove the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of specimen seal in Ext.P1 Seizure Mahazar and Ext.P9, Forwarding Note is one of the circumstances to doubt the genuineness of the prosecution story. Moreover, no documents were seized to connect the accused/appellant with the mini lorry is yet another crucial link evidence, which is lacking in this case. The non-citing and non- examination of the mechanics who allegedly opened the bolt and secret chamber is another flaw to the investigation. 30. The prosecution has to prove that the appellant/accused was aware of the existence of the secret chamber beneath the platform of the mini lorry and that the spirit was transported with his knowledge. It is pertinent to note that the vegetables were being transported in the lorry. No investigation has been conducted as to the source of the spirit, likewise, no evidence is forthcoming for whom the alleged spirit was transported. Admittedly, the accused persons are the driver and cleaner of the lorry. It is pertinent to note that the Investigating Officer did not take any effort to find out who is the registered owner of the mini lorry. It appears that, the attempt of the Investigating Officer is to save the real culprit from the clutches of law. 31. It is well settled that the revisional court cannot act as an appellate court and the power of the revisional court under Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court. In State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri , (1999) 2 SCC 452 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 275 , the Honourable Supreme Court held thus: “5. In State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri , (1999) 2 SCC 452 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 275 , the Honourable Supreme Court held thus: “5. … In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. On scrutinizing the impugned judgment of the High Court from the aforesaid standpoint, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the conviction of the respondent by reappreciating the oral evidence. ...” 32. In the present case, it appears that the appreciation of evidence by both the trial court and the appellate court is perverse and faulty. Hence, the revisional court is constrained to re appreciate the evidence, so as to prevent miscarriage of justice. Suspicion, however strong, cannot be considered a substitute for proof. The provisions of a penal statute are to be interpreted strictly within the four corners of the statute. Findings of guilt cannot be based on surmises, conjectures, assumptions, or presumptions. 33. In Renuka Prasad v. State Represented by Assistant Superintendent of Police , 2025 KHC 6458 , the Supreme Court, in paragraph 49, observed as follows: “49. We cannot but say that the High Court has egregiously erred in convicting the accused on the evidence led and has jumped into presumptions and assumptions based on the story scripted by the prosecution without any legal evidence being available. We cannot but say that the High Court has egregiously erred in convicting the accused on the evidence led and has jumped into presumptions and assumptions based on the story scripted by the prosecution without any legal evidence being available. Truth is always a chimera and the illusion surrounding it can only be removed by valid evidence led, either direct or indirect, and in the event of it being circumstantial, providing a chain of circumstances with connecting links leading to the conclusion of the guilt of the accused and only the guilt of the accused, without leaving any reasonable doubt for any hypothesis of innocence. We can only accede to and share the consternation of the Division Bench of the High Court, which borders on desperation, due to the futility of the entire exercise. That is an occupational hazard, every judge should learn to live with, which cannot be a motivation to tread the path of righteousness and convict those accused somehow, even when there is a total absence of legal evidence; to enter into a purely moral conviction, total anathema to criminal jurisprudence. With a heavy heart for the unsolved crime, but with absolutely no misgivings on the issue of lack of evidence, against the accused arrayed, we acquit the accused reversing the judgment of the High Court and restoring that of the Trial Court.” 34. On going through the records of the case and upon hearing the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the trial court and appellate court had overlooked vital illegalities, infirmities or irregularities, which cuts the very root of the prosecution case. In the result: (i) Criminal revision petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment is set aside. (iii) The revision petitioner/accused is acquitted and he is set at liberty. (iv) The bail bond, if any, executed by the revision petitioner stands cancelled. (v) Fine, if any, paid by him shall be refunded.