PAWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Pawan Kumar is in revision against the judgment dated 16.7.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan Camp at Nalagarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 12 -NL/10 of 2001 confirming judgment dated 7.3.2001 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh in Criminal Case No. 57/3 of 1998 convicting the petitioner under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 as applicable in the State of Himachal Pradesh and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that PW -3 Ranjeet Singh, Constable Dan Singh, PW -2 Constable Bhag Singh, HHG Parma Nand were present at Ghaneri on 1.1.1998 at about 9 a.m. They saw accused carrying a bag who ran away on seeing the police. He was stopped and searched and three bottles of XXX BOXER RUM Ext.P -1 to Ext.P -3 were recovered from his bag. The accused on inquiry disclosed his name Pawan Kumar. He could not show any permit or legal document permitting him to carry three bottles of liquor. The bottles were opened and three nips were taken as sample for chemical analysis. The bottles and nips were sealed with seal ˜T. The seal impression Ext.PW -2/B was taken separately on a piece of cloth and the seal was handed over to PW -2 Constable Bhag Singh. The bottles were seized vide seizure memo Ext.PW -2/A. Ruka was prepared and was sent to Police Station and on that basis F.I.R. Ext.PW -3/B was registered. The investigation was conducted by PW -3/A HC Ranjeet Singh who prepared site plan Ext.PW -3/C. The case property was deposited with HC Ranjeet Singh who deposited the same in Malkhana and sent the samples for chemical analysis to CTL Kandaghat through PW -1 Constable Ram Lok. The result of chemical analysis Ext.PW -3/D was received vide which samples were shown to have contained 56.4%, 57.4% and 73% of proof alcohol. On completion of investigation, the challan was presented in the Court.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma with Ms. Anita Dogra, Advocates, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent and gone through the record. Mr. Ramakant Sharma has submitted that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate that there are material contradictions in the prosecution story. The inference drawn by the two Courts below from the evidence on record is wrong. The petitioner/accused has been wrongly convicted and sentenced by the two Courts below. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that two Courts below after appreciation have recorded a finding of fact and this Court in revision will not reappreciate the facts. He has supported the impugned judgment.