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 the order of sentence passed against the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act by the Assistant Sessions Court, Mavelikkara, as per judgment dated 30.11.2009 in S.C. No. No.386/2008, which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track Court (Ad hoc), Mavelikkara, by judgment dated 31.01.2011 in Criminal Appeal No. No.559/2009. The revision petitioner herein is the sole accused in the said case. 2. The prosecution case is that, on 30.09.2005 at about 6.30 P.M., the accused was found in possession of 1.5 liters of arrack, in a plastic can having a capacity of five liters, at Olavakode in front of the house of one Mohanan Pillai, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act . Thus, the accused is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the . 3. During trial, the prosecution had examined five witnesses as PW1 to PW5 and marked Exts. P1 to P6. MO1 was also identified and marked. 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. On the defence side, one witness was examined as DW1. However, the defence produced no documentary evidence. 4. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act and convicted him thereunder. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In default of payment of the fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 559/2009 before the Sessions Court, Alappuzha. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In default of payment of the fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 559/2009 before the Sessions Court, Alappuzha. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, allowed the same in part and, without altering the finding, the sentence was modified and the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In default of payment of the fine, the accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved thereby, the accused has filed the present revision petition. 6. Heard Sri George Varghese, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Smt. Anima M., the learned Public Prosecutor. The records were also perused. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner 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 counsel, 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. The absence of the specimen seal in the seizure mahazar itself creates serious doubt regarding the sanctity of the seizure, and the possibility of subsequent tampering cannot be ruled out. It was further submitted that the copy of the forwarding note, which is a crucial document in an Abkari case, is not marked in this case, and the same is fatal to the prosecution. 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. 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 possessing 1.5 liters of arrack in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act . In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined five witnesses as PW1 to PW5. Among them, the main evidence relied on by the prosecution is the testimony of PW1, the Preventive officer, who detected the case. During examination before the court, PW1 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 PW3 as an independent witness to prove the occurrence, he turned hostile to the prosecution and deposed that he 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 witness, 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. Nevertheless, when a court is called upon to place sole reliance on the testimony of official witnesses, it must act with utmost care and circumspection. 12. Nevertheless, 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.P1 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 creating doubt regarding the identity of the sample drawn and the identity of the sample produced before the court that was ultimately analysed in the chemical examiner’s laboratory. 14. Further, Ext.P1 seizure mahazar does not contain any details regarding the procedure adopted for sampling and sealing. During his examination, PW1 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 no hesitation in holding that the prosecution failed to establish that the seizure and sampling were conducted in a foolproof manner. 15. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that, in the present case, the forwarding note was neither produced nor marked in evidence. The non- production and non-marking of the forwarding note are fatal to the prosecution case. It is only upon the production of the forwarding note that the Court can verify whether it contained the specimen impression of the seal to enable the chemical examiner to compare the seal affixed on the sample bottle with the specimen seal provided therein. In the absence of the forwarding note, the Court cannot presume that the specimen seal had in fact been provided to the chemical examiner or that the seal on the sample bottle was duly compared with the specimen seal. In the absence of the forwarding note, the Court cannot presume that the specimen seal had in fact been provided to the chemical examiner or that the seal on the sample bottle was duly compared with the specimen seal. Consequently, there is no assurance that the sample allegedly collected from the arrack allegedly seized in this case is the very same sample that was ultimately examined in the laboratory. 16. In the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 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 8(2) r/w 8(1) of the Abkari Act are set aside, and the accused is acquitted. The bail bond, if any, executed by him shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the revision petitioner/accused shall be refunded to him in accordance with law.