DHUBA BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner faced trial in the Court of learned J.M.F.C, Rampur for commission of offence punishable under Section 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act in 2(a) C.C. No.8 of 1992/Tr. No. 872 of 1992. It was alleged by the prosecution that on 24.9.1992 at about 1.15 P.M. the Sub -Inspector of Excise, P.W.2, along with his staff conducted a search of the residential house of the accused after observing all the formalities of search and seizure and recovered 25 litres of I.D. liquor kept in one motor tube and two jerricans. The seizure was made in presence of witnesses. The contents were tested at the spot by blue litmus paper and also by hydrometer. After being satisfied on tests that the liquid was nothing but I.D. liquor, the same was seized and seizure list was prepared vide Ext. 1/1. After completion of inquiry, prosecution report was submitted against the petitioner.

(2.) THE plea of the defence was one of denial.

(3.) MR . D.P. Dhal, learned counsel for the petitioner, forcefully submitted that the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence inasmuch as the mandatory requirements of search and seizure as contemplated in the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act were not followed by the prosecuting agency and as such, the seizure should be disbelieved. He also submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, who were official witnesses and interested in the prosecution case, is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner committed any crime. According to him, the judgment of conviction and sentence is based on extraneous reasons and should be set aside.