BIHARI Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOME 13 years ago on 30.12.1980 Excise Sub -Inspector Pratapsingh Thakur is said to have raided the house of the petitioner in village Dhabla. He stated that the accused abandoned the house and took to his heals. Later on the father of the accused was found on the scene and 19K9s. of Mahua (Lahan) was found together with one bottle containing illicitly distilled liquor. This material was seized under memorandum Ex. P -1 showing seizure from the house of accused in presence of his father while Panchnama Ex. P -2 is of the fact of the accused running away.

(2.) ON trial the accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under section 34 -A of the M.P. Excise Act on account of being in possession of the aforesaid material. The appeal failed. It is clear from the prosecution case itself and more so from the prosecution evidence that at best the case is that the aforesaid articles were seized from the house of the accused. It is very difficult to hold the accused responsible for conscious possession of the aforesaid articles when he had run away. This observation is made on account of the material fact that the father of the accused was present. It is doubtful whether the father also lived in the same house or lived away. The burden lay on the prosecution to prove that the father did not actually live in the house when the seizure was actually made from possession of the father.

(3.) FINE if already deposited shall be refunded to the petitioner.