STATE Vs. SUWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a group of five appeals, all directed against separate orders of acquittal passed by Munsif-Magistrate, First Class, Thana Gazi, in cases under the Rajasthan excise Act, and they all raise a common question of law, viz. , whether in a warrant case instituted on a police report it is open to a Magistrate, after recording some evidence, to cut short the trial and refuse to examine the remaining prosecution witnesses and to proceed to record an order of acquittal ?

(2.) THE facts in the five appeals are similar though not exactly the same. We may set out the facts of criminal appeal No. 131 of 1960 for appreciating and deciding the question of law formulated above and the decision in that appeal will govern the decisions in the remaining appeals also.

(3.) ON June 9, 1959, the Excise Inspector Thana Gazi, recovered at the instance of the accused Suwa son of Lanhu, Kumhar of Chaturpura two pots full of 'pas', one 'degh', one 'babri' and one condenser--Implements for distillation of liquor--and one bottle of illicit liquor. On the basis of this recovery, a charge sheet under section 16 read with Section 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act was submitted against the accused in the Court of Munsif-Magistrate, Thana Gazi. The accused disowned the recovery. A charge under Section 54 (d) of the Rajasthan Excise Act was framed against him and the case was fixed for recording the prosecution evidence on the 27th of october, 1959. On that date, all the witnesses of the prosecution were present but the Magistrate examined two 'motbirs' in the first instance. They, however, did not support the prosecution case and made statements completely favouring the accused. They stated that nothing was recovered at the instance of the accused and that he had been falsely implicated. In view of these statements of the prosecution witnesses the Magistrate considered it unnecessary to record the evidence of the remaining witnesses of the prosecution and ordered the acquittal of the accused.