the benefit of doubt. He pointed out that from Ext.P6, it can be seen
that what was produced before the Court as contraband articles was a
can containing 5 litres of arrack. The Detecting Officer had not
collected the sample of the contraband articles. It was seen from
Ext.P6 that on 24.02.2000, the 'thondy' articles were directed to be
kept in the custody of the Excise Range office. The above fact is
confirmed from the extract of the 'thondy' register, which is produced
as Ext.P7 and it can been seen that the entire 'thondy' articles were
remaining with the Excise Range Office from 24.04.2000. Ext.P5 is
the forwarding note marked in the case, which would show that the
sealed sample bottle of arrack labelled, is the article which is sought
to be sent for Chemical Examination. There is no indication regarding
the manner in which the sample was collected from the 'thondy'
articles. It is pointed out that Ext.P6 does not state that the 'thondy'
articles produced before the Court were in a sealed condition.
Moreover, the forwarding note does not bear the impression of the
specimen seal used for sealing the sample. However, a sample seal
has been produced as Ext.P4. On a verification of Ext.P4, it is seen
that the seal is that of the Magistrate and not of the Excise Range
Officer, from where obviously the sample must have been taken. A
covering letter from the Magistrate to the Chemical Examiner dated
14.03.2000 is also attached to the forwarding note and has been
