appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Sri.P.Vijaya Bhanu had raised four contentions before this Court. Firstly, it is contended that the trial court committed serious error in placing reliance on the evidence adduced by the prosecution to find the appellant guilty of the charge, as the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt . Secondly, it is contended that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant was in conscious possession of the contraband article alleged to have been seized from the dog box of the Guard room of the train, as there was no evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that the guard room was in exclusive occupation of the appellant. Thirdly, it is contended that the detecting officer had not complied with the provisions of Section 36 and Section 53 of the Abkari Act and the provisions of the Kerala Excise Manual while seizing, the contraband article, taking the sample, labelling and sealing the same in the presence of independent witnesses. Fourthly, it is contended that the contents of the report of the Chemical Analyst had not been put to the appellant while he was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which prejudiced him to know the result of the Public Analyst as the contraband article seized was arrack.
