STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. BUDHI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant appeal, challenge has been laid to judgment dated 1.11.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jawali, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Case No. 89-III/2006, whereby learned Court below held the respondent-accused (hereafter, 'accused') not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh (hereafter, 'Act'), in case FIR No. 156/05 and accordingly, acquitted him.

(2.) Having heard learned Additional Advocate General and perused the evidence, be it ocular or documentary, led on record by the prosecution vis-à-vis reasoning assigned by the learned Court below while acquitting the accused, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Ms. Ritta Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, rather, this Court finds that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as such, learned Court below rightly acquitted the accused of the charge framed against him under S.61(1)(a) of the Act. As per story of the prosecution, Police party headed by H.D. Pushap Arun alongwith other Police officials was on patrolling duty on 21.9.2005 at Jagnoli, where after having received secret information, they raided the shop of the accused and allegedly recovered 180 bottles of country liquor mark "Lal Quila". After completion of codal formalities, Police sent Rukka Ext. PW-3/B to the Police Station for lodging FIR. Accordingly, on the basis of aforesaid Rukka, Ext. PW-3/B, FIR, Ext. PW-4/A came to be registered against the accused. After completion of investigation, Police presented Challan in the competent Court of law, who being satisfied that prima facie case exists against the accused, charged him with offence punishable under S.61(1)(a) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) Prosecution examined as many as six witnesses to prove its case but careful perusal of the depositions made by these witnesses nowhere suggest that the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Accused, while getting his statement recorded under S.313 CrPC, denied the case of the prosecution in toto, though he led no evidence in his defence. As has been noticed herein above, as per own case of the Police, after having received secret information, they raided the shop of the accused, which was situated in the middle of the Bazaar, but, interestingly, in the case in hand, Police party failed to associate witnesses, if any, from the bazaar, rather, they associated person namely Ram Pal, PW-2, who nowhere supported the case of the prosecution. PW-2 denied the case of the prosecution in toto, as such, was declared hostile, but even cross-examination conducted upon this witness, nowhere proves the case of the prosecution.