STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. AVTARSINGH PURANSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate of Court No. 15 at Ahmedabad on 19th November 1994 in Summary Case No. 1543 of 1993 is under challenge in this appeal by leave of this Court under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code for brief). Thereby the learned trial Magistrate acquitted respondents Nos. 1 to 3 herein of the offences punishable under Secs. 66-B, 65-E, 81 and 116-B of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (the Act for brief).

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal move in a narrow compass. The police had information about transportation of liquor in one truck belonging to respondent No. 2 herein driven by respondent No. 1 herein with respondent No. 4 herein as a cleaner therein. Thereupon, the police party went near the Chandola Lake and waited for the truck to arrive. On arrival of the truck by 7.45 p.m. it was stopped. Two panch witnesses were kept present. The truck was found to be containing 316 cases of liquor bottles in all numbering 7724 of different brands and varieties. The goods were seized under one panchnama drawn at that time. Thereafter, the Police Inspector of the Police Station at Maninagar filed his complaint of the incident. The chargesheet against the respondents as the accused was submitted to the Metropolitan Magistrate of Court No. 15 at Ahmedabad charging the respondents herein with the offences punishable under Sees. 66-B, 65-E, 81 and 116-B of the Act. It came to be registered as Summary Case No. 1543 of 1993. It appears that respondent No. 4 herein could not be traced. By the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate on 21st October 1994, his case was separated from the rest of the accused. The charge against respondents Nos. 1 to 3 as the remaining accused was explained to them for the purpose of recording their plea on 21st October, 1994. None of them pleaded guilty to the charge. They were thereupon tried. After recording the prosecution evidence and after hearing arguments without recording any further statement of any of the accused, by his judgment and order passed on 19th November, 1994 in Summary Case No. 1543 of 1993, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate of Court No. 15 at Ahmedabad acquitted the accused of the offences with which they stood chargesheeted. That aggrieved the prosecution agency. It has therefore approached this court by means of this appeal by leave of this court under Sec. 378(1) of the Code for questioning the correctness of the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Magistrate.

(3.) Respondent No. 4 has wrongly been shown as a party respondent in this appeal. He did not appear before the trial court. As pointed out hereinabove, his case was ordered to be separated from that of the other accused. In that view of the matter, this appeal against respondent No. 4 at this stage would not be maintainable. It is dismissed qua respondent No. 4.