STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. CHHINDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by the State, is against the decision of sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, in Criminal Case No. 152-111/1983. The learned trial Judge has acquitted the accused on 14-11-1985 for offence under section 61 (l)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13-4-1983, accused was found operating working stills at Ghurkari by Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Shri Bansi Ram, accompanied by 5/Shri Sali Ram and Prem Chand Constables, and Shri A.K. Dewan, Excise Inspector. The working stills were cooled down and the drum containing lahan, chappan fitted with wires and one rubber pipe, one patila, being used as cooler, one bucket, one mug, one canee plastic and one bottle being used as receiver, were taken into possession by the police, besides some pieces of firewood and dust. On test, by Shri A.K. Dewan Excise Inspector, on the spot lahan was found fit for illicit distillation. From the plastic canee and bottle, one nip each of 180 ml. was taken as sample. The Chemical Examiner Kamal, declared the contents of nips as liquor. The investigation ended in the prosecution of the accused and ultimately the trial Judge ordered his acquittal;

(3.) Shri K.C. Rana, learned counsel appearing for the accused, made three submissions. I proceed to deal with them one after another. The first submission of Shri K.C. Rana relates to the finding of the trial Judge as to the deposit of the property in the malkhana. The perusal of the evidence on this aspect indicates that the desposit of the property in the malkhana has-not been satisfactorily explained. There are material variations of the witnesses on this aspect of the case. It is important that the deposit and upkeep of the property in the malkha.na is of fundamental importance. There has to be no indication from which it can be inferred that the property was tampered with during this time and this fact cannot be explained satisfactorily by the destination to which it ultimately goes for analysis. The finding of the trial Judge on this point is justified and I confirm the same. Same is my opinion of point No.3 of the judgment which needs no further elaboration and discussion.