STATE OF H.P. Vs. TRILOCHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Solan Camp at Nalagarh dated 10.2.2003, vide which, he set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the respondent by the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 61(i)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, as applicable to Himachal Pradesh, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that on 10.2.1997 PW -6 SHO Rikhi Ram along with PW -2 HC Kirpa Ram and PW -1 HC Tejvir Singh, was present at Bagheri Check Post in connection with traffic checking and in the meantime accused came from Punjab side and he tried to run away on seeing the police party. On suspicion, he was apprehended. On search of the accused -respondent, 9 bottles of country liquor were recovered from his possession. Six samples were taken out of the bottles which were sealed at the spot and on receipt of the report of the Chemical Examination it was found that the liquor was country liquor. The challan was filed as against the respondent. The respondent was tried by the learned trial Court i.e. the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh and on conclusion of the trial, he was found guilty and was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. In default of payment of fine he was further to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. On appeal by the respondent, the findings were set aside by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge leading to his acquittal. Being aggrieved, the State has filed the present appeal.

(3.) ON appraisal of the judgment passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, it is clear that one of the grounds taken by him was that there is nothing on record that any attempts were made by the prosecution to join independent witnesses. He did not rely upon the testimony of the official witnesses examined and the explanation given for non -joining of independent witnesses that no independent witnesses were available, was held not to be satisfactory.