S. Muralee Krishna, J.

1. This revision petition is filed under Section 397 R/W Section 401 of Cr.P.C, by the accused in C.C.No.355 of 2009, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kottayam. By the judgment dated 10.09.2013 passed by the learned Magistrate in that Calender Case, the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the ‘NDPS Act’ for short), and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Crl.A.No.340 of 2013 filed by the petitioner before the Sessions Division, Kottayam, was ended in dismissal as per the judgment dated 07.01.2015 of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kottayam. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court with this revision petition.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 12.06.2008, at about 10.00 p.m., the petitioner-accused was found transporting 520 grams of Ganja in an autorickshaw bearing Registration No. KL- 5A-1704 through the Kooropada-Oravackel road with an intention to sell the same at Ariparambu. The offence was detected by the Excise Circle Inspector, Kottayam, in front of a waiting shed near Mahadevar Temple at Ariparambu. According to the prosecution, on intercepting the autorickshaw and searching the vehicle, the Circle Inspector and party found the aforementioned contraband article from the dashboard of the vehicle and seized the same.

3. During trial, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 11 and marked Exts.P1 to P9 documents and also identified MOs 1 to 3 material objects. No defence evidence was adduced from the side of the accused. After hearing and on appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial court found the petitioner-accused guilty of the aforesaid offence and sentenced him as mentioned above, which was confirmed in the appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner-accused would argue that during evidence, no forwarding note was marked from the side of the prosecution before the trial court. The laches on the part of the prosecution in marking the forwarding note by tendering it in evidence or proving tamper-free submission of the sample to the chemical examination laboratory is fatal, and therefore, the petitioner-accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt.

6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that only for the reason that the forwarding note was not tendered in evidence, the other convincing evidence adduced from the side of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside, especially, when the trial court as well as the appellate court arrived at a finding against the petitioner-accused after analysing the evidence on record.

7. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court and appreciated the rival submissions made at the Bar. It is trite that this Court, being a revisional court, need not reappreciate the evidence, which was already appreciated by the trial court as well as the appellate court. However, if there are glaring laches on the part of the prosecution which materially affect the prosecution case, a revisional court is entitled to appreciate the said aspect.

8. In Ali v. State of Kerala [2001 (2) KLT 389], while considering an offence under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that when a doubt arises with regard to the authenticity of the sample that reached the laboratory; i.e., whether it was the very same article allegedly seized from the accused that ultimately reached the Forensic Science Laboratory, the same has to be appreciated depending upon the gravity of the offence and proportionate nature of the evidence to be insisted.

9. In Ramachandran v. State of Kerala [2021 (1) KLT 793], this Court held that when the forwarding note/requisition sending the sample was not produced, the prosecution could not establish the tamper proof dispatch of the sample to the laboratory, as there was no satisfactory link evidence to show that it was the same sample that was drawn from the contraband seized, which eventually reached the chemical examination laboratory.

10. In Jalaludeen v. State of Kerala [2024 (6) KHC 290], in the case of an offence under Section 8 (c) r/w Section 21 (c) of the NDPS Act, while considering a situation of non production of copy of forwarding note, this Court held that when forwarding note/requisition for sending the sample was not produced, prosecution cannot establish the tamper proof dispatch of sample to the laboratory, as there was no satisfactory link evidence to show that it was the same sample that was drawn from the contraband seized, which eventually reached the chemical examination laboratory.

11. In the instant case, admittedly, the forwarding note, if any, prepared by the Investigating officer to send the samples which he had produced before the Court as per Ext.P2 property list, is not tendered in evidence. In fact, no evidence at all has been given about the forwarding of the sample to the laboratory or its tamper-proof reception therein. Therefore, it cannot be said conclusively that the samples which PW3 deposed as drawn from the seized contraband article reached the chemical examination laboratory in a tamper-proof condition. In such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. The impugned judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court are therefore liable to be set aside, and the petitioner is to be acquitted of the offence charged against him.

                  In the result, this revision petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment dated 10.09.2013 in C.C.No.355 of 2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kottayam, and the judgment dated 07.01.2015 in Cr.l Appeal No.340 of 2013 of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kottayam, and the petitioner-accused is not found guilty of the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act and he is acquitted of that charge. The bail bond of the petitioner-accused is cancelled, and he is set at liberty.