STATE OF H.P. Vs. CHET RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent was tried and acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 61(1)(a) of Punjab Excise Act, as applicable to Himachal Pradesh for keeping in his actual and conscious possession of one Canny containing 7 bottles of illicit liquor beneath his bed kept concealed in shreds.

(2.) AS per the prosecution case, on 15.4.2000 at about 6.50 a.m., PW6 HC Kalyan Singh accompanied with PW3 LHC Om Prakash was present in village Sangrah, where he got the information that the respondent was dealing in illicit liquor and if his house is raided, the illicit liquor in good quantity could be recovered. On this, he jotted down this information and sent a ruqqa Ex. PW4/A through PW3 LHC Om Prakash, for the registration of the case to the police station, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW4/B was formally registered. PW6 HC Kalyan Singh proceeded to the spot and joined PW2 Bimla Devi, Bheem Dutt and Hira Devi as independent witnesses and searched the house of the respondent and recovered the aforesaid quantity of illicit liquor from beneath his bed a stated above. On the recovery of the Jeri -cane containing 7 bottles of illicit liquor, sample was taken in a nip, which was sealed with seal impression 'T'. The remaining quantity of the liquor was also sealed in the Canny with the same seal and sample of seal was taken on a piece of cloth; seal after its use was handed over to witness Bheem Dutt (not examined). Thereafter on 26.4.2000, the case property was deposited in the Malkhana with PW4 MHC Kamlender Singh through PW1 C.Ram Kumar to whom it was allegedly handed over by PW3 LHC Om Prakash. It is also the case of the prosecution that on 28.4.2000, the sample of the illicit liquor was sent to CTL Kandaghat through PW5 C. Hardayal Singh for its analysis. As per the report, it was found to be that of illicit liquor. After completing the investigation of this case, the challan was presented in the Court, for trial against the respondent.

(3.) TO prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses and respondent was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The circumstances which were found attendant upon the respondent were put to him. He denied all those circumstances; however, he did not lead any evidence in defence.