STATE OF H.P. Vs. GOPI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant/State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, dated 8.7.1999, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 61(1)(a) of Punjab Excise Act, as applicable to the State of H.P.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that on 18.5.1996, S.I. Jagdish Chand was on patrol duty alongwith other police constables at Mela Ground, Banjar. He received a secret information at 6.00 P.M. that one person was coming towards the forest colony alongwitgh illicit liquor. After sometime, the accused was apprehended coming towards the forest colony. PW-4 Mohan Lal and one Balvinder Singh were associated and the canny which accused was carrying, was taken into possession which was containing about 10 ltrs. of illicit liquor. Recoveries were effected in accordance with the procedure and a sample was taken out of the canny which was sent for analysis and on receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, the contents of the sample were found to be illicit liquor and on completion of the investigation, the challan was filed against the respondent. The respondent was tried as detailed above resulting in his acquittal.

(3.) THE submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant were that the learned trial Court had acquitted the respondent mainly on the ground that the persons associated at the time of taking into possession the illicit liquor were employees of the liquor vend. It was submitted that they are not under the thumb of the police but independent witnesses and, therefore, the findings of the learned trial Court acquitting the respondent mainly on this ground are liable to be reversed. It was also submitted that the contradictions in the statements of the official witnesses recorded by the learned trial Court were also minor in nature and as such, the findings to the contrary are liable to be reversed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent had supported the impugned judgment for the reasons given therein.