STATE OF H.P. Vs. SUNIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant/State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 1, Shimla, dated 3.9.1998, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 61(i)(a) of Punjab Excise Act as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as 'said Act').

(2.) A notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent. I have heard Mr. Ashutosh Burathoki, learned Additional Advocate General, for the appellant and Mr. M.L. Brakta, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent and have gone through the record.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent had supported the impugned judgment for the reasons given therein supplementing it by the submission that the mandatory provisions of Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. were not complied with and in view of the contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses, the learned trial Court had rightly acquitted the respondent and those findings cannot be said to be perverse so as to be reversed.