ORDER : JOBIN SEBASTIAN, J. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act by the Assistant Sessions Court, Kasaragod, as per judgment dated 24.06.2009 in S.C. No.767/2005, which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-III), Kasaragod, by judgment dated 22.01.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.161/2009. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in the said case. 2. The prosecution case is that on 20.09.2003, at about 6:00 p.m., the accused was found in possession of 2½ litres of arrack in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act . Thus, the accused is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act . 3. During trial, from the side of prosecution seven witnesses were examined as PWs 1 to PW7 and marked Ext. P1 to P12. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., during which he denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against him. Since the court found that it was not a fit case for acquittal under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C., the accused was called upon to enter upon his defence and adduce evidence, if any, in support thereof. But no evidence whatsoever was adduced from the side of the accused. 4. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act and convicted him thereunder. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence for which he was convicted. In default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.161/2009 before the Sessions Judge, Kasaragod. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, the accused has preferred the present revision petition. 6. Heard Sri. Rahul Sunil, the learned amicus curiae and Smt. Anima M., the learned Public Prosecutor. The records were also perused. 7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, the accused has preferred the present revision petition. 6. Heard Sri. Rahul Sunil, the learned amicus curiae and Smt. Anima M., the learned Public Prosecutor. The records were also perused. 7. The learned amicus curiae submitted that the revision petitioner is wholly innocent of the allegations levelled against him and that both the trial court and the appellate court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. According to the learned amicus curiae, the revision petitioner has absolutely no connection with the contraband allegedly seized in the case and has been falsely implicated on mere surmises and conjectures. It was further contended that the search and seizure procedures were not conducted in a foolproof manner, thereby leaving ample scope for manipulation and tampering. In the absence of the s pecimen seal, the seizure mahazar itself creates serious doubt regarding the sanctity of the seizure, and the possibility of subsequent tampering cannot be ruled out. Hence, there is no assurance that the contraband analyzed in the laboratory was the very same contraband allegedly seized in the case. On these premises, it was contended that the revision petitioner is entitled to an order of acquittal. 8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is ample evidence on record to establish that the contraband involved in the case was recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused and, therefore, the impugned judgment warrants no interference. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that all mandatory procedures relating to the seizure and handling of the contraband were scrupulously complied with, thereby completely ruling out any possibility of tampering or manipulation. 9. As already noted, this is a case in which the prosecution alleges that the accused was found in possession of 2.5 litres of arrack in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act . In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined seven witnesses as PW1 to PW7. Among them, the main evidence relied on by the prosecution is the testimony of PW1, the detecting officer. During examination before the court, PW1 had narrated the entire sequence of events relating to the detection of the offence. 10. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined seven witnesses as PW1 to PW7. Among them, the main evidence relied on by the prosecution is the testimony of PW1, the detecting officer. During examination before the court, PW1 had narrated the entire sequence of events relating to the detection of the offence. 10. However, it is significant to note that although the prosecution had examined two independent witnesses, PW3 and PW4, to prove the occurrence, in support of its case, both of them turned hostile to the prosecution and deposed that they had not witnessed the detection of the contraband from the possession of the accused. 11. While considering the effect of the hostility of the independent witnesses, it must be borne in mind that, in recent times, it has become a common experience that in many Abkari cases independent witnesses turn hostile to the prosecution for reasons best known to them. It is nevertheless well settled through a catena of judicial pronouncements that the hostility of independent witnesses in Abkari cases is of little consequence, provided the evidence of the detecting officer regarding the detection and seizure of the contraband is otherwise convincing and reliable. 12. However, when a court is called upon to place sole reliance on the testimony of official witnesses, it must act with utmost care and circumspection. It is incumbent upon the prosecution to satisfy the court that all procedures relating to the search, seizure, sealing, and handling of the contraband were carried out in a foolproof manner so as to rule out every possibility of tampering or manipulation. Further, there must be cogent and convincing evidence to establish that the contraband allegedly seized from the accused is the very same material that ultimately reached the court and was thereafter forwarded to the Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory for analysis. 13. Keeping in mind the above, while reverting to the case at hand, it can be seen that in Ext.P3 seizure mahazar neither the sample seal nor the specimen impression of the seal allegedly used by the detecting officer for sealing the sample was affixed therein. 13. Keeping in mind the above, while reverting to the case at hand, it can be seen that in Ext.P3 seizure mahazar neither the sample seal nor the specimen impression of the seal allegedly used by the detecting officer for sealing the sample was affixed therein. The absence of the sample seal or specimen impression of the seal in the seizure mahazar is certainly a circumstance c reating doubt regarding the identity of the sample drawn and the identity of the sample produced before the court that was ultimately analyzed in the chemical examiner’s laboratory. 14. Further, Ext.P3 seizure mahazar does not contain any details regarding the procedure adopted for sampling and sealing. During the examination, PW1, the detecting officer, also failed to state the nature of the seal used by him while sealing the sample, as well as the residue of the contraband allegedly seized in the case. Therefore, I have n o hesitation in holding that the prosecution failed to establish that the seizure and sampling were conducted in a foolproof manner. 15. Another aspect highlighted by the learned amicus curiae is the inordinate and unexplained delay in producing the sample before the chemical examination laboratory after it had been entrusted to the Excise Guard. In order to examine the correctness of this contention, this Court has carefully perused the forwarding note and the chemical analysis report, marked as Exts. P7 and P11 respectively. A scrutiny of Ext. P7 forwarding note reveals that the sample was entrusted to the Excise Guard for transmission to the chemical examination laboratory on 21.09.2003. However, Ext. P11 chemical analysis report shows that the sample reached the laboratory only on 23.10.2003. Thus, there was a delay of more than one month in producing the sample before the laboratory after it had been entrusted to the Excise Guard. Such a substantial and unexplained delay assumes significance in cases involving seizure and sampling, as the prosecution is duty-bound to establish an unbroken chain of custody from the stage of seizure until the sample reaches the chemical examiner. The delay, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation, inevitably gives rise to a reasonable apprehension regarding the possibility of tampering, substitution, or manipulation of the sample during the intervening period. The delay, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation, inevitably gives rise to a reasonable apprehension regarding the possibility of tampering, substitution, or manipulation of the sample during the intervening period. Significantly, there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the sample remained in safe and s ecure custody throughout the period between its entrustment to the Excise Guard and its receipt by the chemical examination laboratory. The prosecution has also failed to adduce any evidence regarding the manner in which the sample was stored, handled, or transported during the said period. More importantly, the Excise Guard to whom the sample was entrusted was not examined as a witness. Consequently, there is no evidence to establish who had custody of the sample bottle during the relevant period or whether the seal remained intact and the sample remained untampered with until it reached the hands of the chemical examiner. In the absence of satisfactory evidence establishing the safe custody, proper handling, and untampered transit of the sample, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the very same sample allegedly drawn from the contraband seized from the accused was the one ultimately subjected to chemical analysis. Such a serious lacuna in the prosecution case strikes at the very root of the evidentiary value of the chemical analysis report. Therefore, the benefit arising from this deficiency must necessarily enure to the accused. In the result, this criminal revision petition is allowed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against the revision petitioner/ accused for the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act is set aside, and the accused is acquitted of the said offence. The bail bond, if any, executed by the accused shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the revision petitioner/accused shall be refunded to him in accordance with law.