witness though stated that he along with PW.3 had seen the appellant coming towards them with MO.1 can containing 8 litres of arrack and had identified the contents in MO.1 by smelling and tasting, such identification is not seen mentioned in Ext.P1 mahazar. In Ext.P1 it is only stated that a can was seized from the appellant. Further, it is an admitted case that PW.6 had not taken sample from MO.1 in the presence of independent witnesses. This is evident from the evidence of PW.4 who had stated before the court below that he had forwarded the requisition to the court for taking sample for chemical analysis. As per the provisions of the Abkari Act, the officer who detects the crime should take samples in the presence of independent witnesses and the samples and the residue should be sealed, labelled and signed by witnesses so as to prove that the sample analysed was the same sample that was taken from the accused. Further, the evidence adduced by the prosecution does not show when MO.1 was produced before the court below and when sample was taken for chemical analysis. PWs.1 and 2 also deposed that they had not seen seizure of MO.1 from the appellant. Even though PWs. 1 and 2 admitted their signature in Ext.P1 mahazar, they stated that the excise officials had obtained their signature in white paper. Though the trial court found that the signature of PWs.1 and 2 were in printed paper, this Court on a perusal of the same found that the signatures were on white paper. As held in the
