Absence Of Magistrate's Signature Or Seal On Contraband Inventory Renders Seizure Doubtful: Kerala High Court

"The act of certifying an inventory under Section 53A of the Abkari Act is not an empty formality, especially since such inventory is treated as primary evidence in an Abkari case," Kerala High Court has held that the mandatory procedure under Section 53A of the Abkari Act, which requires a Magistrate to certify the correctness of the inventory of seized contraband, must be strictly followed.

A single bench of Justice Jobin Sebastian, in an order, observed that the absence of a Magistrate’s signature or seal on the inventory document vitiates the prosecution's case as it renders the very seizure of the contraband doubtful.

The revision petitioner was allegedly caught in possession of 4 litres of illicit arrack on September 26, 2009, by the Hosdurg Excise Range. He was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Court, Hosdurg, in 2015 and sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. This conviction was subsequently confirmed by the Sessions Court, Kasaragod, leading the accused to challenge the concurrent findings through a criminal revision petition before the High Court.

The primary question before the court was whether the non-certification of the inventory by a Magistrate, as prescribed under Section 53A of the Abkari Act, would entitle the accused to an acquittal. The court was also called upon to determine if the lack of a signature or seal on the inventory document (Ext.P8) made the seizure of the residue contraband legally unsustainable.

Prosecution Established Chain Of Custody For Samples

The Court initially examined the evidence regarding the samples sent for chemical analysis. It noted that the specimen impression of the seal used on the sample bottle was affixed in the seizure mahazar and provided in the forwarding note. The chemical examination report (Ext.P12) confirmed that the seals tallied, indicating that the prosecution had successfully established the link evidence for the representative sample.

Procedure Under Section 53A For Residue Disposal

The bench then turned its attention to the disposal of the residue arrack. According to the prosecution, the residue was disposed of after preparing an inventory as per Section 53A of the Abkari Act. However, the Court found that the inventory marked as Ext.P8 did not bear the signature or the seal of the Magistrate who was purportedly meant to certify its correctness.

Certification Is Not An Empty Formality

The Court emphasized that Section 53A(2) of the Abkari Act requires an Authorized Officer to apply to the Magistrate for certifying the correctness of the inventory, taking photographs, or drawing representative samples in the Magistrate's presence. The bench noted that the Magistrate must exercise due care and caution during this process, as the certified document assumes the character of primary evidence during the trial.

"The Magistrate must satisfy himself regarding the correctness of the particulars and description of the property contained in the inventory before certifying the same."

Absence Of Magistrate's Seal Vitiates Inventory

Upon perusal of the records, the Court found that there was nothing to indicate that the Magistrate had actually verified or certified the inventory. The bench observed that when such a crucial document lacks the basic authentication of a judicial officer, the legal requirements of the Abkari Act remain unfulfilled. This lapse is particularly significant when the residue of the contraband is not produced before the Trial Court.

Doubt Cast On The Act Of Seizure

The Court held that the strict compliance of procedural safeguards is mandatory in Abkari cases. If the residue is destroyed without a properly certified inventory, and no satisfactory evidence is provided regarding its lawful disposal, the entire act of seizure becomes suspicious. In such circumstances, the benefit of the doubt must necessarily be extended to the accused.

"When the procedure prescribed under Section 53A of the Abkari Act is not strictly complied with, and when the residue of the contraband... is not produced before the court, the very seizure of the contraband becomes doubtful."

The High Court concluded that the procedural lapses in certifying the inventory were sufficient to set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The criminal revision petition was allowed, and the petitioner was acquitted of all charges. The Court further directed that any fine amount deposited by the accused be refunded in accordance with the law.

Date of Decision: 19 May 2026