STATE OF M P Vs. KARAMBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed by the State under section 378(1) and (3), Cr. P.C., is directed against the judgment dated 8/1/1982, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharamjaigarh, in Criminal Case No. 339 of 1981, acquitting the respondent of offences punishable under section 37 of M.P. Excise Act and Rule 4(2) of M.P. Mahuwa Rules.

(2.) Prosecution case against the respondent was that on 21.2.1981, he was found in possession of 130 bags of Mahuwa in his Truck No. M.P.S. 5664 without any permit or licence, which amount to violation bf Rule 4(2) of M.P. Mahuwa Rules and section 37 of M.P. Excise Act. The prosecution was launched by the Excise Sub-Inspector, Kharsia, on an alleged authority of the Collector, Raigarh. During the trial the said Sub-Inspector did not care to appear before the Magistrate and, therefore, it was not proved that the prosecution had been started under authority of the Collector. Only two witnesses viz, P.W. 1 Hariharnath and P.W. 2 Sadanand were examined on behalf of the prosecution, who denied having seen Mahuwa or the respondent carrying Mahuwa in the truck. That is how the respondent has been acquitted. Section 61 of M.P. Excise Act provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under section 37 of the Act, except on a complaint or report of the Collector or an Excise Officer not below the rank of District Excise Officer as may by authorised by the Collector in this behalf. Since the prosecution was launched for offence punishable under this section by the Excise Sub-Inspector, it was incumbent upon him to prove his authority. The complaint was lodged by the Excise Sub-Inspector, who admittedly is not entitled to file the complaint in view of section 61 of the Act. Then, even this authority was not proved. Clearly, therefore, the trial Court could not have taken cognizance of the matter. This, by itself, would be sufficient to dismiss this appeal.

(3.) Evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, viz., Hariharnath and Sadanand, is not sufficient to connect the respondent with the Mahuwa in question. These two witnesses have only seen the standing truck. There is nothing on record to hold that the truck either belonged to this respondent or was being driven by him. The respondent, in his statement, has denied having carried Mahuwa. He has not even claimed ownership thereof. Under the circumstances, there is no evidence worth the name to connect the respondent with the offence. Clearly, there- Fore, his acquittal is fully justified.