JHADIA NAIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment dated 6.4.1999 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur in Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 1997/Criminal Appeal No. 295 of 1996 GDC confirming the judgment dated 7.11.1996 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhatrapur in 2(a)C.C. No. 41 of 1993 by which the petitioner was convicted under Section 47(a) of Bihar & Orissa Excise Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default rigorous imprisonment of one month.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 9.5.1993 at about 4 P.M. while P.W.1, the S.I. of Excise was performing patrolling duty near Rikapalli along with P.W.3, the A.S.I. Excise and Ors. the appellant was found coming with jerrican. On being searched by P.W. 1, the jerrican was found containing 5 litres of I.D. liquor. P.W.1 took measurement and conducted blue litmus paper and hydrometer test of the alleged liquor and, thereafter, seized the same under seizure list Ext.-1 in presence of witnesses including P.W.2. On completion of enquiry, prosecution report was submitted against the petitioner. In order to substantiate the allegation, prosecution examined three witnesses, P.Ws. 1 to 3 referred above. On appraisal of evidence on record, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as stated supra.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner should not have been convicted on the basis of uncorroborated testimonies of the two official witnesses only. There is no evidence on record that I.D. liquor was seized from the possession of the petitioner. The seized article as well as blue litmus paper used, and hydrometer chart prepared by P.W.1 have not been produced in Court. Learned Additional Standing Counsel supports and defends the judgment passed by the learned courts below.