STATE Vs. JASWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal dated 12.09.2003 passed by the learned ACMM in a case arising out of FIR No.264/1996, Police Station: Shalimar Bagh under Sections 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a narrow conspectus. As per the case of the prosecution, on 05.05.1996, a report under Section 173 Cr.PC was received that the respondent was illegally carrying twenty two cartons of liquor while plying his Maruti car at about 1:30 AM on the Outer Ring Road, Q-4 Block in front of Pitampura, Delhi. The respondent was charged for commission of an offence under Section 61 of the Act, to which he had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution had examined five witnesses, including PW-2 Inspector Rajinder Singh, PW-3 SI Devinder Singh and PW-4 Ct. Suresh, who happened to be the members of the raiding party and had apprehended the respondent as well as effected the recovery. The respondent was examined and his statement was recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, wherein he had denied the allegations levelled against him and claimed that he had been falsely implicated in the case after he had entered into an altercation with the staff of a petrol pump in the area. However, the respondent did not adduce any evidence in his defence.

(3.) By the impugned judgment, the trial court has acquitted the respondent on the ground that Section 75 of the Act contemplates that no Judicial Magistrate shall take cognizance of an offence under Section 61 or Section 66 except on his own knowledge or suspicion or on the complaint or report of an Excise Officer and though a notification had been issued by the Delhi Administration conferring the status of an Excise Officer upon the police officers above the rank of Head Constable, but in the present case, as a report had been submitted by an Inspector Incharge of the police station under Section 173 Cr.PC, the same did not fulfill the requirement of the aforesaid provision. The learned ACMM had concluded that there was no "complaint" or a "report of an Excise Officer" for the purpose of a trial on the basis of a report that is required to be submitted under Section 173 Cr.PC and as a result, the respondent was acquitted.