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 55(g) of the Abkari Act by the Assistant Sessions Court, Nedumangad as per the judgment dated 02.08.2013 in S.C. No.1006/2002, which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Court-V, Thiruvananthapuram, as per judgment dated 26.11.2014 in Crl. Appeal No.367/2013. The revision petitioner is the 1 st accused in the said case. 2. The prosecution case is that, on 04.05.2002 at about 8.05 a.m., the accused were found possessing and transporting 350 kg of palm jaggery and 25 kg of ‘karinja patta’, in a car bearing Registration No. KL 08 B 6310 through Aryanad - Kittichal road, for the purpose of brewing arrack, in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act . Thus, the accused are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section 55(g) of the . 3. During trial, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW6 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P6. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the first accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, during which he denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out against him in evidence. As it was not a fit case to acquit the accused under Section 232 of Cr.P.C, the 1 st accused was called upon to enter upon his defence and adduce evidence, if any, in support thereof. From the side of the accused, three documents were marked as Exts. D1 to D3, and the 1st accused himself was examined as DW1 under Section 315 of the Cr.P.C. 4. Finally, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the first accused guilty of the offences punishable under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act , and he was convicted. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 55(g) of the . In default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.367/2013 before the Sessions Court-V, Thiruvananthapuram. In default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.367/2013 before the Sessions Court-V, Thiruvananthapuram. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, confirmed the finding and sentence passed by the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, the first accused has preferred the present revision petition. 6. Heard Sri. M. Sreekumar, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri. U. Jayakrishnan, the learned Public Prosecutor, also perused the records. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is wholly innocent of the allegations levelled against him and that the present case was falsely foisted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Aryanad Police Station, at the instigation of the Circle Inspector of Police attached to the same station. According to the learned counsel, the said Circle Inspector was harbouring animosity towards the accused because, on an earlier occasion, the accused had hesitated to hand over his vehicle for the private use of the Circle Inspector despite persistent insistence from the latter. It was contended that, owing to such personal enmity, the Circle Inspector, through his subordinate officer, namely the Sub-Inspector, engineered the registration of the present case against the accused. 8. The learned counsel further submitted that, on the date of the alleged occurrence, the accused was indeed transporting jaggery in his vehicle for delivery to a shop, as entrusted by a wholesale dealer in palm jaggery. According to the defence, taking advantage of the situation, the detecting officer, in collusion with the Circle Inspector, incorporated “karinja patta” (black bark) among the seized articles solely to create the false impression that the jaggery was intended for the illicit distillation of arrack in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act . 9. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the detecting officer registered the case only after being satisfied that the articles transported by the accused were intended for the manufacture of illicit arrack. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the allegation that the case was foisted at the instance of the Circle Inspector is absolutely baseless and unsupported by any material evidence. 10. This is a case involving the alleged recovery of a huge quantity of jaggery and certain quantities of karinja patta from the possession of the accused. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the allegation that the case was foisted at the instance of the Circle Inspector is absolutely baseless and unsupported by any material evidence. 10. This is a case involving the alleged recovery of a huge quantity of jaggery and certain quantities of karinja patta from the possession of the accused. The specific allegation of the prosecution is that the said materials were being transported solely for the purpose of brewing arrack. However, while considering whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing such intention, it is pertinent to note that, apart from jaggery and karinja patta, no utensils, implements, fermenting materials, or apparatus ordinarily used for the distillation of arrack were recovered from the accused or from the vehicle allegedly used for transportation. 11. In a prosecution of this nature, the burden squarely lies on the prosecution to establish, through convincing and cogent evidence, that the articles seized were intended exclusively for the manufacture of illicit liquor. 12. In the case at hand, the accused has set up a specific defence that the jaggery transported in the vehicle was intended for lawful delivery to a shop, pursuant to instructions received from a wholesale dealer. The explanation offered by the accused regarding possession and transportation of the jaggery appears plausible and cannot be brushed aside lightly. Once a plausible explanation is offered by the accused regarding possession of the articles, the burden shifts back to the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the articles were intended for the commission of the alleged offence under the Abkari Act . 13. This Court is conscious of the fact that, apart from jaggery, certain quantities of karinja patta were also allegedly recovered in this case. However, the defence has a definite case that the said material was subsequently introduced by the detecting officer only to create the impression that the seized jaggery was intended for distillation of arrack. 14. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that even from the prosecution records, it is evident that the sample of the alleged karinja patta was not taken at the place of detection. The seizure mahazar does not disclose the manner in which sampling of the karinja patta was conducted. 14. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that even from the prosecution records, it is evident that the sample of the alleged karinja patta was not taken at the place of detection. The seizure mahazar does not disclose the manner in which sampling of the karinja patta was conducted. Likewise, except for a bare recital that karinja patta was taken into custody, the mahazar does not specify the quantity allegedly seized, the quantity sampled, the method of preservation, or whether the samples were sealed at the spot in accordance with the prescribed procedure. 15. These omissions assume significance in the facts and circumstances of the present case. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the possibility of manipulation or subsequent tampering with the alleged contraband articles cannot be completely ruled out. 16. Significantly, the accused took the risk of entering the witness box and adduced evidence in support of the defence version. During the examination before the Court, he consistently supported the defence case put forward by him. Though subjected to extensive cross-examination by the prosecution, nothing substantial could be elicited to discredit his testimony or to establish that the version deposed by him was false or inherently improbable. 17. It is also relevant to note that two independent witnesses were cited and examined by the prosecution to prove the alleged detection and seizure. However, both witnesses turned hostile and categorically stated that they had not witnessed the seizure of the jaggery and karinja patta from the accused. 18. While considering the effect of the hostility of independent witnesses, this Court is mindful of the fact that in recent times, independent witnesses in Abkari cases often turn hostile for reasons best known to them. It is equally well settled through a catena of judicial pronouncements that the mere hostility of independent witnesses is not by itself fatal to the prosecution case, provided the evidence of the detecting officer regarding seizure and detection is otherwise reliable, trustworthy, and inspires confidence. 19. However, there is no inflexible rule that the Court must invariably act upon the solitary testimony of the detecting officer under all circumstances. In the present case, the accused has a definite and specific defence that the case was falsely foisted against him at the instance of the Circle Inspector of Police owing to prior animosity. 19. However, there is no inflexible rule that the Court must invariably act upon the solitary testimony of the detecting officer under all circumstances. In the present case, the accused has a definite and specific defence that the case was falsely foisted against him at the instance of the Circle Inspector of Police owing to prior animosity. When allegations of mala fides and false implication are specifically raised against the investigating machinery itself, the Court is required to evaluate the prosecution evidence with greater care, caution, and circumspection. 20. In such circumstances, there is nothing improper in the Court seeking corroboration from independent evidence before acting solely upon the testimony of the detecting officer. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the hostility exhibited by the independent witnesses assumes considerable significance. Coupled with the procedural irregularities regarding seizure and sampling, the defence version appears reasonably probable. 21. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 22. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the revision petitioner/first accused for the offence punishable under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act are set aside, and he is acquitted of the said offence. The bail bond, if any, executed by the first accused shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the revision petitioner/first accused shall be refunded to him in accordance with law.