STATE OF H P Vs. MOTI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE state is aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by learned Judicial Magistrare Ist Class, Court No. 1 Dehra, acquitting the respondents herein for offence punishable under Section 61 (1) (14) of Punjab Excise Act, and Sections 177 and 192 of Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) BRIEF Facts of the case necessary for adjudication are that on 10-1-1998 Inspector Gobind Ram (PW-22) SHO of Police Station, Jawalmukhi was present at Naka-Bandi at around 4.30 p.m at Adhe-Di-Hattian. The prosecution alleges that respondents/accused Moti Lal, Ravinder Kumar and Surinder alias Mohinder Singh were intercepted while they were present in Truck bearing Registration No. HP 20-1377. On seeing police, they fled away from the truck but later-on were caught hold of by police personnel where Moti Lal disclosed his name. Mohinder Singh was apprehended later-on. The prosecution alleges that huge quantity of liquor/IMFL was found in the truck, 126 box of country liquor of 50 ml. and 200 ml. containing 6300 pouches and further five boxes of 375 m.l each containing 1200 pouches, 20 boxes of 750 ml. each containing 240 pouches of country liquor Una No. 1, 3 boxes of 750 ml. each containing 36 bottles of English Liquor Patiala whiskey, 5 boxes of 750 ml each containing 60 bottles of Commando XXX Rum. These were being transported without any valid permit. Seizure memo was prepared and signed by the accused persons in presence of PW-17 Vinod Singh and PW-20 Rakesh Kumar. FIR against the accused persons was registered at Police Station, Jawalamukhi under Section 61(1)(14) of Punjab Excise Act, as applicable in the State of H.P. The main stand of the prosecution is on the seizure memo Ex. PW- 17/A as also on disclosure statement Ex. PW-20/A. According to the first document, seizure memo has been prepared and signed by PW-17 Vinod Kumar and PW-20 Rakesh Kumar including accused persons. Both these witnesses have resiled from their statements and stated that no liquor was seized in their presence. PW-17 Vinod states that this memo has been got signed by him 3-4 years back and that there was no liquor which was recovered. He was declared hostile. In his cross- examination nothing material has come out to show that this witness is not stating the truth. He admitted his signatures, but denied the preparation of this memorandum on the spot. On similar effect is the evidence of PW-20 Rakesh who was also declared hostile. This is the case of complete denial. On cross- examination by learned counsel for accused, he states that he was salesman with Des Raj and was asked to go to the police Station at his behest.PW-20/A disclosure statement is witnessed by Rakesh Kumar and Vinod Singh, which has also not been proved in accordance with law as held by Trial Court below. On the totality of the evidence on record, the learned Court acquitted the accused persons for the offences, as alleged. Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that the evidence is not properly appreciated by the Courts below and recovery of huge amount of liquor supported by the police personnel cannot be disbelieved. It is not the quantity of liquor seized but in fact the quality or proof of the substantive offence which has to be established on the record. The contention of the learned Deputy Advocate General that the offence has been proved cannot be accepted.

(3.) IN these circumstances, the judgment of Trial Court is modified to the extent that the liquor seized, shall be confiscated to the State. It is directed accordingly. Petition stands disposed of.