STATE OF H.P. Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 11.1.2001, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, whereby the respondent -accused (hereafter referred to as the accused) has been acquitted of a charge under Section 61(l)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, as applicable to Himachal Pradesh (hereafter referred to the Act).

(2.) The prosecution case against the accused, in brief, is that on 22.4.1994, a police party headed by S.I. Puran Chand (PW -5) was moving towards village Bantungli in connection with patrol duty. When the police party reached near Ghagian bridge, the accused, who was holding a plastic cane in his hand, was noticed coming from the opposite side. On suspicion, he was apprehended and on checking, it was found that the plastic cane being carried by the accused contained liquor, which, on measurement was found worth three bottles of liquor. A sample was separated from the recovered liquor and thereafter the sample and the remaining liquor were sealed with seal impression T and after use the seal was handed over to Constable Gulzar Singh (PW -2), a member of the police party PW -5 prepared the recovery memo Ex. PW -2/A and the ruqua Ex. PA. The ruqua was sent to the police station where formal FIR Ex.PB was recorded. The sample was sent for chemical analysis and on such analysis, Assistant Chemical Examiner, C.T.L., H.P., Kandaghat, vide his report Ex.PC found that the sample was of illicit liquor. A charge sheet was then submitted against the accused, who came to be tried by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, on a charge under Section 61(l)(a) of the Act.

(3.) To prove the charge, prosecution -examined 5 witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he pleaded to be innocent and denied the prosecution case. He, however, did not lead any defence evidence. On the basis of the material on record, the learned trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the accused was acquitted of the charge against him. Hence this appeal. .