STATE Vs. SHANTI DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Government appeal against the acquittal of Shanti Dutt, Amin Chand and Tokha by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Chamba on their appeal against conviction by a learned first class Magistrate under Section 61 (1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, for an offence punishable under Section 24 (4) of that Act and Rule 10. 23 of the Punjab Import, Export, Transport, and Possession Rules. The first two were convicted as actual offenders and the last vicariously under Section 77 of the said Act. The offence consisted in possession of country liquor in excess of the limit of retail sale, viz., in excess of one bottle.

(2.) Shanti Dutt and Amin Chand are both residents of Chamba town, while Tokha is a resident of Himgiri, about 36 miles from Chamba, where he holds a The State vs. Shanti Dutt and Ors. (10.12.1951 - HPHC) Page 1 of 3 licence for retail sale of liquor. The facts, which are not in dispute, are these. Tokha used to get his supply of country liquor from the wholesale dealer at Chamba, one Sanji Ram, through Amin Chand. On 9 Baisakh 2005, Amin Chand purchased four gallons, or 24 bottles, of liquor from Sanji Ram on behalf of, and for transmission to, Tokha. The full consignment was brought from the wholesale vendor's shop to the hospital, where both Shanti Dutt and Amin Chand are employed, and thence carried to the house of Shanti Dutt because it was much nearer. Out of it 13 bottles of liquor were despatched by Amin Chand to Tokha the same evening through a coolie but not the remainder as the coolie had some other load also to carry. The remaining 11 bottles of liquor were left by Amin Chand at the house of Shanti Dutt on the promise that as soon as a coolie was available in a day or two, the same will be despatched to Tokha. Ten days thereafter, i.e., on 19 Baisakh 2005, the police recovered these 11 bottles of liquor from the house of Shanti Dutt, and this led to the prosecution and the conviction of the three respondents by the First Class Magistrate for the said offence.

(3.) The Punjab Import, Export, Transport and Possession Rules could not be produced by the Government Advocate although he took time for doing so. These Rules were not produced even in the two Courts below. That is however immaterial since Section 24 (1) of the Act serves the purpose as well. It may be noted here in passing that on the date when the offence was committed the Chamba Excise Act of 2003 S., and not the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, was in force here. That again makes no difference since the corresponding provisions in both the Acts are identical.